PriNCiPlEs
iNtO PrACtiCE
How charities and social enterprises
communicate impact
INSPIRING
FINANCIAL
LEADERSHIP
Sponsored by
INSPIRING
FINANCIAL
LEADERSHIP
With many thanks to contributing authors
Editors: Katherine Smithson and Jane Tully, CFG;
Tris Lumley, NPC; Nick Carey ACEVO.
This publication has been kindly sponsored by
Grant Thornton and PS Financials
Charity Finance Group
49-51 East Road
London N1 6AH
0845 345 3192
www.cfg.org.uk
Registered charity no: 1054914
ACEVO
1 New Oxford Street
London WC1A 1NU
020 7280 4960
www.acevo.org.uk
Registered charity no: 1114591
New Philanthropy Capital
3rd Floor
185 Park Street
London
SE1 9BL
www.philanthropycapital.org
Registered charity no. 1091450
© March 2012 Charity Finance Group, ACEVO and
New Philanthropy Capital. All rights reserved.
Individual articles © March 2012 remain with the authors.
Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of
information contained in this publication. However the copyright
holders cannot be held responsible for any action an individual
or organisation takes, or fails to take, as a result of this
information.
ISBN: 978-0-9567860-1-2
Design by: Cottier & Sidaway
2
FOrEWOrD
impact is the next big frontier for
charities and social enterprises
Which charities would you name that you think are
effective? What organisations would you say really
make your donation have an impact?
I have asked these two questions to many
audiences in the charity sector. A few hands go up
and people name names. I then ask a follow up
question: can any of the people give me a statistic,
figure or a demonstration of that impact? And very,
very few ever can. They tell me their knowledge of
impact comes because they see the charity in the
media a lot, or they have had first-hand knowledge
of the charity’s work, or that it’s very well known.
In the answer to these probing questions lie both
the enormous potential of demonstrating impact
and the greatest difficulty. Let me explain.
The public have huge trust in charities. Charities
are in the premier league of trusted British
institutions. And yet this trust is generated despite
the fact that most people have no ‘evidence’ that
charities actually do a good job. So imagine just
how powerful, how compelling the case for
supporting charities will be when we can work out
how to show donors and other stakeholders the
impact charities have. In particular, imagine the
spectacular rewards which will come to those
organisations who make their impact so compelling
that people can remember it and even quote it back
to people like me.
But the trust that people put in charities is also part
of the difficulty. It makes it much easier to ignore
the need to demonstrate impact. Given how much
trust we have already, the imperative to do more to
build trust is diminished.
My belief is that those charities which really work
out how to both measure and communicate impact,
will be the Google, the Facebook or the Amazons
of our sector. They will change the way we do
business.
This collection of case studies and insights from
across the sector is of those organisations who are
showing us that the status quo is not enough, that
they understand how important measuring impact
is. They are the pioneers of the impact frontier.
The benefits of this approach can be seen in
different ways for these organisations, and for
different reasons. The case studies show how
understanding impact can help with decisions on
investment in services, on reassuring donors and
grant-makers, on providing strategic insight and on
giving feedback to staff and volunteers, even
though rarely has it been easy or straightforward.
From amongst these case studies may well be the
organisations who are our sector’s equivalent to
Google et al: the game changers. They are
weaving impact measurement and communication
into their DNA. They are pursuing and building
remorselessly on their approach each year. And
those who succeed will turn their hard work into
higher levels of trust, increased levels of donation,
improved strategic planning and a bigger impact on
beneficiaries for the same funds.
So savour all that is in this publication and the
inspiration that it provides on impact reporting.
Joe Saxton
Driver of ideas, nfpSynergy
3
CONtENts
iNtrODUCtiON
5
PArt A: Experiences from charities and social enterprises
8
iNsiGHts FrOM tHE CAsE stUDiEs
9
• 1. BODy & sOUl: Starting with the basics
11
• 2. rNiB GrOUP: Embedding impact across a complex organisation
13
• 3. siGHtsAVErs: Communicating performance management internally
15
• 4. CAADA: Building on existing evidence
18
• 5. UNliMitED POtENtiAl: Understanding the needs of stakeholder groups
20
• 6. CitizENs ADViCE sErViCE: Supporting members to report on impact
22
• 7. tHE st GilEs trUst: Applying economics
23
• 8. AVENUEs trUst: Implementing an impact measurement programme
25
• 9. ACtiON ON HEAriNG lOss: Reporting online
27
liNKiNG WitH tHE PriNCiPlEs: Some examples from the case studies
29
PArt B: Viewpoints from across the sector
31
• 1. tElliNG AN iMPACt stOry
Sarah Hedley, NPC
32
• 2. DEMONstrAtiNG PErFOrMANCE iN tHE trUstEEs' rEPOrt
Amanda Tilley, Grant Thornton
34
• 3. lEADErsHiP: ExAMiNiNG tHE CEO’s rOlE iN DriViNG iMPACt FrOM tHE tOP
Nick Carey, ACEVO
36
• 4. liNKiNG FiNANCiAl AND PErFOrMANCE MANAGEMENt
David Membrey, CFG
38
• 5. sOCiAl iMPACt MEtHODs: ONE sizE DOEsN’t Fit All
Claire Coulier, The Social Impact Analysts Association (SIAA)
40
• 6. COMMUNiCAtiNG yOUr iMPACt
Jim Minton, DHA Communications
42
• 7. MEAsUrEMENt AND DEliVEry: A COrPOrAtE PErsPECtiVE
Jon Lloyd, Corporate Citizenship and LBG
44
• 8. A FOUNDAtiON PErsPECtiVE ON rEPOrtiNG: FrOM ACCOUNtABility BUrDEN
tO lEArNiNG OPPOrtUNity
Charles Keidan, Pears Foundation
46
PriNCiPlEs iNtO PrACtiCE: Concluding thoughts
48
rEFErENCEs AND UsEFUl liNKs
50
4
INTRODUCTION
iNtrODUCtiON
What do we mean by impact?
We often use the word ‘impact’ amongst charities
and social enterprises when talking about what we
have done and how this has contributed to change.
It is used in a number of different ways, but
generally means the broader or longer-term effects
of a project or organisation1. This can also
encompass outcomes, which are the results of an
activity. Reporting on impact takes us beyond
looking at our basic actvities or outputs and looks
at the effect of an organisation’s activities on an
individual life or in a wider context.
inputs
Activities
Outputs
Outcomes
impact
The demands for information placed on charities
and social enterprises are increasing from all
angles. Funders increasingly want to know about
their impact – from a qualitative understanding of
what they are achieving against their mission to a
quantitative assessment of their social and
economic value. However, they are not the only
group that want or need to know this information.
Charities and social enterprises that hope to be
accountable to, engage, inform, and inspire their
stakeholders will try to communicate clearly the
impact of their work. From local groups run by
volunteers to national charities employing
thousands of staff, social organisations increasingly
want to tell their stakeholders how they are fulfilling
their purpose and achieving the change that they
seek.
One of the biggest challenges for charities is to use
the way they report to help donors, volunteers and
beneficiaries to better understand how they work
and what they do. In order to be judged by your
stakeholders on the real difference made to your
cause, you must be telling the real story of what
you do and how you do it.
Better reporting
Even when we are sure that what we are doing is
achieving something, proving it can be difficult.
Alongside the technical challenges of measuring
your results, finding effective ways to communicate
your working model, achievements and learning
processes is no easy task – especially when
resources are tight. Those organisations that have
gone the furthest have not only looked at their
external reporting, but have engaged their whole
organisation, embedding impact into their planning,
decision-making processes and internal
communications.
The organisations that have contributed to this
publication are passionate in the belief that
charities should robustly assess the effectiveness
of what they do and should share what they find
openly. This will have benefits not only to the
organisation involved and its beneficiaries, but also
to the development of the sector as a whole.
the Principles of Good impact
reporting
The Principles of Good Impact Reporting were
published in March 20122. These principles,
originally put together in partnership by several
organisations, were developed for the sector by the
sector and were published following consultation.
The principles aim to provide a basic framework for
requirements for impact reporting which can be
universally applied.
The principles are not only helpful to charities
looking at improving the way they report to their
stakeholders. The audiences for impact
information, such as funders (including donors,
trusts and foundations and government
commissioners), should also find these principles a
useful place to start thinking about the types of
information demanded of charities and how they
could be shaping this.
The Principles of Good Impact Reporting provide a
framework for how charities and social enterprises
should communicate their impact and what they
should communicate.
5
These principles are intended to be flexible;
charities can shape their communications and
reporting around their own context, and should not
view them as a compliance exercise. There is no
single right way to report on impact.
These principles are also meant to be aspirational.
Many charities and social enterprises will find they
cannot at first answer all the questions they pose.
Instead, they will have to work through a journey
How should charities communicate
their impact?
There are six general principles that define how
charities should communicate their impact:
Although many charities will not be able to apply
these principles fully at first, asking these
questions should help to define a path towards
fuller answers. Many charities will improve their
reporting significantly by reviewing it against
these principles, and can also plot a course
towards improving it in future.
ultimately trying to tackle?
• What overall impact do we want to have?
What change do we seek?
• What impact do our key stakeholders want
us to have?
• Clarity
The reader can quickly and easily understand
the organisation through a coherent narrative
that connects charitable aims, plans, activities
and results.
• Defined aims
• What are our specific short and long-term
aims?
• How does achieving these aims help us
achieve our overall purpose/impact?
• Accessibility
Relevant information can be found by anyone
who looks for it, in a range of formats suitable
for different stakeholders.
• Coherent activities
• What activities do we carry out to achieve
our aims?
• What resources do we use to make these
activities happen?
• What are the outputs of these activities?
• How do our activities help us achieve our
aims and create change?
• Are our activities part of a coherent plan?
• transparency
Reporting is full, open and honest.
• Accountability
Reporting connects with stakeholders, partners
and beneficiaries to tell them what they need to
know, and provide reassurance.
• Verifiability
Claims about impact are backed up
appropriately, allowing others to review. This
can range from informal stakeholder feedback
to external audit.
• Proportionality
The level and detail of reporting reflects the
size and complexity of the organisation, and
the complexity of the changes they’re trying to
bring about.
What should charities communicate
about impact?
There are six specific principles that define what
charities should communicate about their impact:
• Clear purpose
• Why do we exist? What issue are we
6
from their purpose to their strategy, taking in their
approach to measuring impact along the way.
• Demonstrated results
• What outcomes/impact are we achieving
against our aims?
• What impact are we achieving against the
overall change we seek?
• Evidence
• How do we know what we are achieving?
• Do we have relevant, proportionate
evidence of our outcomes and impact?
• Are we sharing evidence to back up the
claims we make?
• Are we seeking feedback, review and input
where appropriate?
• lessons learned
• What are we learning about our work?
• How are we communicating what we learn?
• How are we improving and changing from
what we learn?
• What has happened that we didn’t expect
(positive and negative)?
• Are we allocating resources to best effect?
INTRODUCTION
Using this publication
In the spirit of the Principles of Good Impact
Reporting, this publication is not a ‘how-to’ guide.
Here we aim to bring the principles to life through
first-hand accounts from a range of charities and
social enterprises that believe in the importance of
demonstrating their impact. We also offer some
perspectives, tips and advice from stakeholders
across the sector.
The authors of the case studies in Part A all tell
their story so far, demonstrating different aspects of
the principles. While their motivations may be
similar – to demonstrate their potential to funders,
know that they are on track, contribute to an
evidence base, raise their profile or motivate staff –
they have all adopted different approaches to their
strategy, measurement processes and
communication techniques. They are also at
different stages of their journey – some are just
starting out, others have impact reporting hard
wired into their culture and processes. The
examples help to demonstrate how organisations
can look at their impact in a way that is
proportionate and appropriate to their size and
activities. From finding creative ways of involving
staff teams and making information more
accessible to beneficiaries and other stakeholders,
using external verification of findings through
research agencies, accreditation or consultation
processes, there are lots of helpful tips here.
In Part B we look at some of the overarching
considerations through thought pieces from
different stakeholders. This section gives guidance
on starting the journey of improving your reporting
and the roles of different teams in the organisation.
We draw on the expertise of communications and
social research specialists, looking at some of the
options available in these areas. It also looks at
some of the current trends in thinking amongst
corporate funders and supporters, and in the area
of trusts, foundations and philanthropy.
This publication, along with the Principles of Good
Impact Reporting, aims to inspire charity
professionals and provide greater confidence and
knowledge to move towards better reporting in the
context of their own organisation.
7
PArt A: Experiences from charities and social enterprises
iNsiGHts FrOM tHE CAsE stUDiEs
9
1. BODy & sOUl: Starting with the basics
11
2. rNiB GrOUP: Embedding an impact culture across a complex organisation
13
3. siGHtsAVErs: Communicating performance management internally
15
4. CAADA: Building on existing evidence
18
5. UNliMitED POtENtiAl: Understanding the needs of stakeholder groups
20
6. CitizENs ADViCE sErViCE: Supporting members to report on impact
22
7. tHE st GilEs trUst: Applying economics
23
8. AVENUEs trUst: Implementing an impact measurement programme
25
9. ACtiON ON HEAriNG lOss: Reporting online
27
liNKiNG WitH tHE PriNCiPlEs: Some examples from the case studies
29
8
PART A: Experiences from charities and social enterprises
iNsiGHts FrOM tHE CAsE stUDiEs
In the following section nine organisations share
their experiences and tell of the approach their
organisation has taken to improving the quality of
the information they collect and report. The
reflections here describe varied approaches and
demonstrate good practice in line with different
aspects of the Principles of Good Impact
Reporting.
For many of the organisations the start of the story
has been one of getting to the basics. Reviewing
their aims and objectives and working model in
order to identify their key indicators and evidence
their way of working. This will sometimes come
before the stage of external ‘reporting’, or may
enable an organisation to slowly build-up the
quality of the information they take to key
stakeholders.
the importance of strategy
The small service based organisation Body & Soul
started their journey by developing an ‘impact
strategy’, engaging staff and volunteers at all levels
in the process. As well as providing a coherent
explanation of the evidence behind their working
model, and tangible links between activities and
overarching objectives, this works as a ‘living’
strategy with key performance indicators enabling
the organisation to build its evidence base and
embed impact into their day-to-day operations.
For CAADA, an organisation that was evidence-led
from the start, it was essential that the innovation
demonstrated in setting up such a responsive
service was captured on an on-going basis.
Researching and reviewing their programmes has
enabled them to maintain the effectiveness and
core values of what they do and to demonstrate
learning. It has also provided them with key
information to take to commissioners and partners.
supporting teams across an
organisation
Other examples in this publication have been on a
slightly different journey. The RNIB Group, a large
organisation and well-known brand, describes a
bottom-up approach that embeds impact reporting
right across the organisation. Similarly, the Citizens
Advice Service works with its members, the
bureaux, both in terms of collecting information
centrally and supporting them as individual
organisations. For both charities this has meant
developing tools and services for their staff and
partners, including training and document based
support such as templates. RNIB Group has also
developed an internal ‘impact consultancy’.
Working with external sources
The use of external sources, both to gather
information on impact and to show validity, also
comes through in the case studies. Unlimited
Potential, a social enterprise, has engaged with a
range of accreditation agencies and programmes in
order to demonstrate their achievements with
external, objective assessment and verification.
They have also made use of a number of
processes to improve their internal assessment.
Alternatively, the Avenues Trust Group reviewed
different options for improving knowledge of their
impact and made a decision to roll-out one
programme of measurement, ‘active support’,
which has entirely reshaped their organisational
processes and strategic decision making. This is a
bold move driven from the top and has successfully
enabled Avenues to embed impact reporting into its
culture and working.
The experience of the St Giles Trust is worthy of
note. It used economic modelling to demonstrate
what one of its programmes achieves in monetary
terms. Rob Owen discusses here the value of
working in partnership with an external organisation
that can give information otherwise unobtainable
about the charity. Others in the sector have
invested in commissioning research on their
outcomes or on the value of services. This
outsourcing of research skills can give some
organisations a more credible, impartial
perspective of their work. It may also be a cost
effective option for a charity without the
infrastructure or skills to look at impact in-house; if
taken on board meaningfully, there are benefits
from the legacy of an externally verified research
project – although this may not always be the most
suitable option given potential for associated costs.
Good communication throughout the
process
Sightsavers and Action on Hearing Loss both show
creative ways of communicating real-time
performance and impact to internal or external
stakeholders. For Sightsavers, through one starting
platform that all staff have access to online, they
communicate what they want to achieve and why,
identify the related activities and the indicators of
success, and incorporate the monitoring process
that involves all staff across the organisation. The
simple traffic light system allows staff to see how
9
well performance is against the objectives set at
any time – a transparent and inclusive approach.
For Action on Hearing Loss, beneficiaries have
been brought into the heart of the measurement
and monitoring process, with specialist monitoring
tools being designed for users. This goes a long
way to ensuring the charity is more accountable to
its beneficiaries and is helping the charity to move
beyond outputs and make information on its impact
more accessible.
These are just some of the thoughts that can be
taken from the examples set out below. All of the
case studies have touched on some of their
motivations, lessons learned and strategy that will
be interesting to others and may reflect some of
those of your own organisation.
10
PART A: Experiences from charities and social enterprises
1. BODy & sOUl: Starting with the basics
Body & Soul is a charity that uses multiple approaches to address the complex consequences an
HIV diagnosis can have on a person, a partnership, or a family. Working with children, teenagers
and families living with or affected by HIV, it relies on expert consultation from a multidisciplinary
team of specialists. Body & Soul has 10 full time employees, around 200 volunteers and has an
annual income of around £1million. In the past it struggled to demonstrate its full impact and
communicate its intervention model externally.
Emma Colyer, director of Body & Soul, describes how developing their first impact strategy enabled
them to address this
Why focus on our impact?
showing the full extent of our impact on
beneficiaries
The impact of clinical interventions on the wellbeing
of people living with HIV is clear - as long as a
person living with HIV is diagnosed early and
receives appropriate interventions, their immune
system can function for an extended period of time
(even decades). This clear-cut relationship
provides the evidence necessary to prompt the
NHS to spend roughly £18,000 per person living
with HIV and needing treatment per year3.
Unfortunately, because of the stigma associated
with HIV, the physiological effects of the disease or
the powerful medications used to treat it are only a
fraction of the reason an HIV diagnosis is
devastating. People living with HIV are more likely
to self-isolate, suffer from anxiety and depression,
experience suicidal ideations and demonstrate
poor coping behaviours such as addiction. They
are also more likely to live in poverty and
experience unemployment than the average
person in the UK, a reality that Black Africans living
with HIV disproportionately experience. This myriad
of co-morbidities accompanying HIV can have a
more profound, sustained impact on a person’s
wellbeing than the physical impact of the virus.
Our services went beyond mere clinical
interventions to address these wider issues. Thus
the challenge we faced was: How can we
demonstrate our health outcomes in a way that
allows us to represent our true impact when
compared to clinical providers?
Changes in the financial environment
2010 was a period of massive adjustment for the
charity sector, especially for organisations like ours.
The financial environment (including reduced trust
giving, changes in the structure of the health
system, and widespread statutory cuts) made it
increasingly hard for us to secure the funding we
needed to operate our services. The financial
changes, coupled with rising prevalence and
incidence of people living with HIV, meant that our
services were at higher demand than ever.
We recognised that the difficulties we faced in
communicating process and impact could
potentially be our proverbial “Achilles heel”.
Accordingly, we decided to address these areas.
Engaging staff and beneficiaries
In late 2010, Body & Soul began developing its first
“impact strategy”. The purpose of the strategy was
simply to provide a single reference document that
clearly outlined:
• The needs of the target population.
• The rationale behind those needs being
prioritised.
• The potential interventions that would address
those needs.
• The indicators that would provide evidence that
those needs were being met.
The Health Outcomes Manager (HOM) (who led on
the strategy) met with all service heads over
several days. Using a range of programme
brainstorming and mapping techniques, we
identified key impact areas and mechanisms to
meet those impact areas. The HOM also met with
some of our beneficiaries, reviewed past needs
assessments, and conducted gap needs analyses
to ensure that the diverse needs of the population
were represented proportionately.
identifying objectives and linking with
services
At the end of this process, there were five main
impact areas identified: mental health, physical
health, psychological wellbeing, practical support,
11
and maximising productivity. The HOM conducted a
series of thorough needs assessments and
literature reviews to ensure that the full range of
our beneficiaries’ need was addressed.
This research process took into account national
and international data. It incorporated a theoretical
basis for more general interventions, and used best
practice evidence from similar populations when
there was not HIV-specific information. For
example, while there is limited evidence on the role
of mentoring in improving the wellbeing of
vulnerable youth living with HIV, there are copious
amounts of high-quality evidence on the utility of
mentoring as an intervention for improving
wellbeing of vulnerable young people, so this
evidence was incorporated into the strategy.
A ‘living’ strategy
Once the initial strategy was drafted, internal and
external stakeholders reviewed it for accuracy,
content, and thoroughness. Feedback was
assessed and incorporated as appropriate. After
the Impact Strategy 2011 was finalised, it was
presented to trustees and other key stakeholders.
The strategy was accessible in different formats to
different audiences, and serves as a benchmark to
ensure we are accountable for our intervention
decisions and that our services are joined up. The
impact strategy is considered a living document,
and we plan to review it regularly to ensure
relevancy and thoroughness, as well as to respond
to political, economic, social and technological
changes.
Embedding the strategy across the
organisation and beyond
Following the implementation of the strategy, it was
then communicated in a systematic way to other
key audiences, including volunteers, to ensure an
organisational consistency in the way aims,
activities and rationale is perceived. Versions of the
impact strategy were adapted for use in external
communication and for other purposes.
The strategy is being incorporated into Body &
Soul’s work on all levels. For example:
• Trustees have been trained in how to use it to
better communicate Body & Soul’s activities to
external stakeholders.
• The fundraising team uses it to prioritise areas
for funding applications and also to provide a
clear evidence base for interventions.
12
• The Heads of Body & Soul’s 4 primary service
areas (which work with populations 0-9 years
old, 10-12, 13-19 and 20+) use the strategy to
plan interventions, ensure programming content
meet the target population’s complex needs, and
to formulate key evaluative and quality
objectives.
Benefits to our organisation
Incorporating the impact strategy into our model
has allowed us to operate in a more sophisticated
way. We use the strategy as a basis for evaluating
and reforming our measurement and reporting
practices. Additionally, we are working in
partnership with Microsoft to build a bespoke
database; this information management system will
be linked with the impact strategy on all levels. This
will allow Body & Soul to create a more
comprehensive needs and intervention impact
measurement system which will hopefully allow our
organisation to contribute more actively to
formulating the evidence-base for interventions.
This process also enhances our ability to share
learning.
While the process of formulating the impact
strategy was time and resource-intensive, Body &
Soul has already experienced benefits. The
strategy has improved the formality of the
organisation’s work process, and been a critical
reference for all key stakeholders in understanding
and promoting the methodology behind its
interventions. It also provides the basis on which
Body & Soul can review the effectiveness of our
activities, enabling us to learn and improve and
demonstrate achievements.
PART A: Experiences from charities and social enterprises
2. rNiB GrOUP: Embedding impact across a complex organisation
Royal National Institute of Blind People is the UK’s leading charity offering information, support and
advice to almost 2 million people with sight loss. It employs around 2,500 people and works with
4,000 volunteers across all of the UK and an annual income of around £116million (2010-2011). It’s
pioneering work helps anyone with a sight problem – through information, support and range of
imaginative and practical solutions to everyday challenges.
Keith Hickey, director of resources, and Phil Sital-Singh, impact research project manager at RNIB
Group describe how a large and complex organisation can approach impact reporting
Why we care about performance and
impact reporting
Embedding impact reporting through
empowerment
As a large, complex organisation, we have at least
three motivations to improve our impact reporting.
In 2008 RNIB Group began a two-year
collaboration with London South Bank University to
build impact reporting capacity across the
organisation. This project has empowered RNIB
Group project managers with knowledge and skills
to take responsibility for measuring and reporting
on the impact of their own services. The work has
three strands:
• Attraction: Impact reporting builds and
strengthens the business case for innovation
and the development of services, and for funding
those services. For example, we have conducted
research into the value of employing blind and
partially sighted people through social
enterprises. This evidence is now being used to
build support for the development of new social
enterprises.
• Alignment: Impact reporting allows RNIB Group
to link its service delivery to the experience of
blind and partially sighted people better than
output reporting, leading to closer alignment of
resources to RNIB Group's strategic objectives.
For example, RNIB Group's Customer
Information and Advice Service has developed
its own system to gather evidence of emotional,
behavioural and knowledge changes in the
people it supports. This evidence will be used to
ensure that the advice given is as effective and
helpful as possible, placing customers at the
very centre of the service.
• Accountability: Impact reporting allows us to
demonstrate that the services we currently
commission are having a positive change on
individuals and society, and therefore strengthen
the case for renewed funding. For example, our
Eye Clinic Liaison Officer (ECLO) services are
commissioned to meet people's needs at the
point of diagnosis of sight loss. RNIB Group has
developed an impact tool, based on NHS
outcome frameworks, to gather evidence to
demonstrate the value of the service to
commissioners.
• internal training: A bespoke RNIB Group
course on impact measurement was delivered to
a variety of staff across the organisation.
• internal consultancy: Following training,
individual service teams were supported to apply
ideas around impact reporting to their own
context. This ensured that suitable tools were
selected and embedded, resulting in sustainable
change. The Principles of Good Impact
Reporting provides a useful framework for
developing this further.
• internal documents: Practical and applied
knowledge from the internal training and
consultancy has been distilled into a series of
supporting materials, available to all RNIB Group
staff.
This approach could be characterised as 'bottomup', empowering teams to take responsibility for
reporting on the impact of their own services, and
has proved successful within an organisation as
large and complex as RNIB Group. The activities
have generated an increasing commitment to, and
growing awareness of, the value of impact
reporting. The individual consultancy support has
proved a popular and effective way to build
capacity. This is leading to further opportunities and
new motivations that may not have emerged if a
strong 'top-down' approach had been taken.
13
lessons learned
We’ve learned a number of lessons as we develop
RNIB Group’s impact reporting capability.
• One size does not fit all: Whilst principles of
and commitment to impact reporting is best
communicated in a consistent way across
teams, the application of those principles and
how they relate to measurement practices needs
to be bespoke. One size does not fit all in
methods used to generate impact evidence.
• Combine research skill and service delivery
knowledge: Gathering impact evidence is best
achieved through the combination of research
skill and service delivery knowledge. Research
skills ensure the evidence gathered is credible;
service delivery knowledge ensures the methods
applied are appropriate and effective.
• Get buy-in from both senior management and
front-line: Implementing impact measurement
and reporting needs to be supported at all levels
to increase chances of success. RNIB Group
services are often in high demand, with limited
resource - achieving improved reporting requires
commitment from front line staff and
encouragement from senior leaders.
looking ahead – communicating
our impact
To date RNIB Group has focussed on improving its
capacity to generate results and evidence. We now
have sufficient sources of impact evidence to
embrace other principles of impact reporting. For
example we will include impact evidence in our
annual report for the first time, and do so in ways
that are clear, transparent and verifiable. We hope
that, over time, these two approaches, building
internal impact evidence and reporting that
evidence externally, will take RNIB Group to the
forefront of impact reporting within the sector.
14
PART A: Experiences from charities and social enterprises
3. siGHtsAVErs: Communicating performance management internally
Sightsavers is an international charity which works with partners to eliminate avoidable blindness
and promote equality of opportunity for disabled people in the developing world. In 2010
Sightsavers had an annual income of around £32million.
Anita Dumbrell, decision support manager at Sightsavers, explains how the charity has introduced
performance management systems and are looking to move to reporting on impact
Devising a new strategy and monitoring
system
In 2007 Sightsavers began the process of
formulating the strategy which would take it from
2009 to 2013. As with all strategies, the danger
was that time and resources would be invested in
its development, producing a wonderful document
which then sat on a shelf for five years – all output
and no outcome.
In order to avoid this eventuality, Sightsavers
adopted a tool called the balanced scorecard,
adapting it to create our SIM card, which stands for
the Strategy and Implementation Monitoring card.
As the name suggests, the card offers a direct
opportunity to monitor the implementation of the
new strategy in real time, also allowing us to report
on the impact we are having as an organisation.
the siM card
The SIM card (see Fig. 1 on next page) is a one
page strategy map which enables Sightsavers to
share its vision, mission and ultimate aims,
together with the long term goals broken down into
tangible and easy-to-understand objectives,
covering a range of interlinked perspectives. At the
top are the change themes, indicating the
significant long-term change which we are working
towards in our four principle areas of work: eye
health, education for visually impaired children,
social inclusion of disabled people and inclusive
community development. Beneath these are the 14
core objectives which we have set ourselves as an
organisation.
There is a logic running vertically through the SIM
card, with the question ‘Why?’ being asked as the
user moves from the bottom to the top: Why do we
want to ensure high quality programmes? (In order
to demonstrate scalable, cost-effective approaches
to eye care and education etc.) The ‘How?’
question moves the user from the top to the
bottom: How do we ensure high quality
programmes? (By ensuring adequate technical
expertise, developing our country-level teams,
gathering sound research and evidence etc.)
Each of the objectives has a score sheet with 1-2
indicators which show how success will be
measured (Fig.2 is an example). Targets are set
against which performance is recorded. Initiatives
have been agreed which identify the activities that
need to be undertaken in order to achieve these
targets. All identified teams input their results biannually via a bespoke interactive web based
database. This is in a ‘dashboard’ format with a
traffic light system so it is easy to see at a glance
where the organisation is performing well and
which areas require attention. It is then possible to
“drill down” into the data to review performance in a
series of graphs, gauges and tables.
involving the staff team
Every staff member at Sightsavers has access to
the SIM card dashboard and can view and enquire
on performance at any time. It also enables staff
members to understand how they each contribute
to the strategy, as the objectives on the strategy
map cover the work of all our teams and
departments, not just programme staff.
Workshops were carried out with each team in
Sightsavers to discuss the strategy and its
implications and to allow teams to consider what
they should be focussing on to support the
strategy, and what they needed to do differently.
This has meant that there is more ownership and
clarity across all teams in the organisation.
The senior management team (SMT) regularly
review performance using the SIM card and
decisions are made based on the latest results.
They examine what impact Sightsavers
programmes are making and whether targets are
being achieved and if not, why not, and what can
be done to improve performance.
15
Figure 1 The Strategy and Implementation Monitoring Card (SIM Card)
Objective
Indicator
Demonstrate scalable
cost-effective
approaches to eye
care which strengthen
health systems
lag: % of countries showing
significant increases in public
spending on eye health
30%
lead: % of eye health projects that
are embedded in national and local
government health plans
70%
Gather and
disseminate sound
research & evidence
lag: % of projects and policies
demonstrating use of evidence and
research in their design, planning,
and implementation
80%
lead: % of direct charitable
expenditure invested in research
1.5%
Figure 2 The Sightsavers SIM card, example scoresheet
16
Target (2011)
PART A: Experiences from charities and social enterprises
lessons learned along the way
As with all impact measurement and reporting
initiatives, a lot of time is required to produce
robust and relevant information. The process of
developing and maintaining the SIM card as a
performance and impact monitoring and reporting
tool is very time consuming and requires a
significant investment from a financial perspective.
We have managed to successfully maintain the
momentum around the SIM card due to senior
management buy-in. They use the tool for decision
making about the direction of our programmes, with
each objective on the SIM card being ‘owned’ by a
member of the SMT and reviewed regularly when
the team meets.
However, there is a danger of the map becoming
solely a senior management tool rather than an
organisational one if it is not linked in with other
programmatic processes such as project level
monitoring, evaluation and learning systems in the
organisation. Undertaking active feedback to
information providers is also crucial to maintaining
interest in submitting data.
From performance management to
reporting on impact
The SIM Card is a piece of the bigger jigsaw for
Sightsavers in terms of impact reporting. Our vision
is to turn this reporting mechanism into a three
dimensional tool that allows us to present evidence
in the form of case studies, project reports and
testimonials, ultimately linking this organisational
level impact and outcome monitoring directly with
our work on the front line. We are also planning to
create more linkages with other impact
measurement processes i.e. evaluations and
research in Sightsavers so that we present a
holistic picture of our work.
17
4. CAADA: Building on existing evidence
Coordinated Action Against Domestic Abuse (CAADA) is an innovative domestic abuse charity
working to save lives by transforming the way victims are supported. Formed in 2005, its strategy
has been evidence-based from the start, building on studies into a new multi-agency approach to
high risk domestic abuse in the UK. CAADA has more than 30 employees and an annual income of
£2million.
Victoria Hill, director of strategy and development at CAADA explains how CAADA built on its
evidence-led approach
Background
CAADA was formed in 2005 after studies of service
provision in Cardiff highlighted a need for a new
approach to high risk domestic abuse in the UK.
Previously the focus had been on refuge provision.
However, this work proved the efficacy of a risk led
response with independent specialist support for
victims and effective coordination of the many
agencies involved, in particular with regard to
sharing information.
This led to the development of the Independent
Domestic Violence Advisor (IDVA) role and Multi
Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARACs).
An IDVA provides support to victims of domestic
abuse to address the safety of the victim and their
children. The IDVA will assess the level of risk,
develop a safety plan and provide intensive support
through the crisis period. A MARAC is a meeting of
statutory and voluntary partners where information
is shared about the highest risk domestic abuse
cases and a coordinated action plan to safeguard
each victim is developed. Police, health, child
safeguarding, IDVAs and other specialists attend
the MARAC to ensure that a complete picture of
the risk is developed.
We have made rapid progress and fundamentally
changed the support available for high risk victims.
More than 1,250 practitioners have attended our
IDVA training and there are now 250 MARACs
across the country. Prior to the development of
IDVAs and MARACs many victims were forced to
flee to a refuge. Now we start by keeping them safe
in their homes.
learning from evidence
In 2010 we reviewed our strategy based on two
pieces of research. Published in 2009, Safety in
Numbers4 was a multi-site evaluation of IDVA
services evaluating the impact of IDVA support on
more than 2,500 high risk victims of domestic
abuse. In 2010 we published Saving Lives Saving
18
Money, a cost benefit analysis of MARACs carried
out by CAADA and independently verified by New
Philanthropy Capital. This work provided us with
the evidence that the IDVA/MARAC approach
works. Safety in Numbers showed that the more
intensive the support received by a victim the better
their safety and wellbeing outcomes. There was a
total cessation of abuse in 57% of cases where a
victim was supported by an IDVA. Saving lives
saving money also demonstrated that £6 of public
money is saved for every £1 invested in MARACs.
This information has been invaluable in helping us
secure funding and improving our stakeholder
engagement. However, these studies also made
clear the scale of the challenge remaining and
some fundamental gaps in our approach. We
estimate that there remain at least 100,000 high
risk victims of domestic abuse and we know that on
average it takes five years to seek help. Safety in
Numbers highlighted that safety and wellbeing
outcomes for particularly vulnerable groups such
as those with substance use or mental health
issues or victims from black and minority ethnic
communities are less good. It also showed that
professionals are less well equipped to address
some additional risk factors often associated with
domestic abuse, such as sexual violence or child
safeguarding. Feedback from local domestic abuse
services, funders and political stakeholders also
made clear that good quality evidence like Safety in
Numbers was required on an ongoing basis and
was not readily available.
Adapting strategy in response
In response, our new goals for the next five years
are to halve the number of high risk victims from
100,000 to 50,000 and halve the length of time it
takes victims to find effective help from five years
to 2.5 years. We have launched three new
initiatives to help us achieve this:
• A piece of research to evaluate the impact of
locating iDVA services in hospital settings:
PART A: Experiences from charities and social enterprises
Early indications show that these services
identify victims earlier in the abusive relationship
and reach vulnerable groups that are hidden or
unwilling to seek help from the criminal justice
system. We aim to use this evidence to embed
an improved response to domestic abuse in
health services.
• A Continuing Professional Development
programme: Advanced training providing a
short, intensive focus on issues affecting
vulnerable groups which professionals are less
confident about. We have launched Child
Safeguarding, Substance Use and Sexual
Violence with the next priorities being working
with families and black and minority ethnic
groups.
• the CAADA insights service: Providing robust
outcome measurement to domestic violence
services using a methodology similar to Safety in
Numbers but adjusted to make it affordable and
practical for local domestic abuse services. We
now have high-quality outcome data on more
than 4,000 victims across the country and this
number grows each month. This data is used
locally for service improvement, commissioning
and funding decisions; it also informs CAADA’s
policy and service development work.
We also used data from Safety in Numbers and
Saving Lives Saving Money to confirm that our
work embedding quality in domestic abuse services
nationally through our IDVA foundation training,
Leading Lights accreditation service and MARAC
Development Programme, should continue to be
core to our strategy.
Communicating our impact for
fundraising
Equally importantly, these impact reports underpin
our funding applications. Like most voluntary sector
organisations, we are finding the current funding
climate challenging. However, we have
successfully obtained a number of long term grants
from statutory bodies and foundations and our
evidence base has been critical to this success.
CAADA was founded to address an evidenced
need and, since then, impact reporting has been
fundamental to our success. It allows us to
evidence the impact of our work to funders, helping
us to sustain funding. It also means our strategy is
always shaped by the real needs of victims and
those working in the sector.
19
5. UNliMitED POtENtiAl: Understanding the needs of stakeholder groups
Unlimited Potential is a democratically-controlled social enterprise based in Salford that provides
innovative, community based solutions to long standing community problems. It aims to help
people lead happier and healthier lives. As a social enterprise, it reinvests surpluses back into the
organisation towards its mission. In its tenth year (2011-2012), the organisation had 35 staff and a
turnover of £1.5 million.
Chris Dabbs, chief executive of Unlimited Potential, describes how impact reporting and externally
verified reports have been beneficial in a social enterprise context
Our reasons for focusing on impact
service impact – our systems
In 2005, Unlimited Potential (then a much smaller
organisation called Community Health Action
Partnership) agreed that, to ensure its future, it
needed to demonstrate the impact, not only of
individual services, but also of the wider
organisation. We also considered that external,
objective assessment could help to demonstrate
the business case, support marketing and build
confidence in the organisation.
Within Unlimited Potential we already have in place
systems for reviewing the impact of individual
services. Every service must specify and report
performance against clear outcomes (what
difference it has made), with outcome indicators
(the signs that the outcomes have been achieved),
as well as key performance indicators (reflecting
outputs and progress). These reflect what has
been negotiated in each contract.
Our original motivations for doing this were to:
• Show current and potential stakeholders that the
organisation had met acknowledged standards.
• Know that the organisation was reaching its
standards and improving.
Performance against these measures is then
reflected in a quarterly report, together with
qualitative reflections, such as formal feedback
from clients, external assessment, quotes, case
studies and images. The report also reflects the
highlights, difficulties and lessons learned. This
report is the focus of a quarterly performance
review with the customer (who procured the
service), who then provides quarterly written
feedback.
Understanding the reporting needs of
different stakeholders
Early in the process, we identified six key
stakeholder groups, which reflected different
motivations for impact reporting.
External stakeholders:
• Customers: To show the full value of the
organisation’s offer and provision, and thus as a
marketing tool.
• Clients: To persuade intended beneficiaries of
the effectiveness of the organisation’s services
for them and their community.
internally:
• Members (including the Advisory Council) –
To be accountable to the people who hold the
organisation in trust for the benefit of the
community.
• Directors: To enable the Board to make
informed decisions and to scrutinise effectively.
• staff and volunteers: To reflect their
achievements.
At some point, every service has an external
evaluation done by an independent organisation,
ideally commissioned by the customer. This has
been done using a range of techniques, including
qualitative interviews, surveys, focus groups,
control trials, social return on investment (SROI)
and utilisation-focused evaluation.
Organisation wide impact – finding the
right measurement tools
However, we sought to develop processes to
assess our organisation wide impact. Initially, we
developed our own criteria against which to
demonstrate the organisation’s social, economic
and environmental impact, as well as the
effectiveness of its governance. We then used
Proving and Improving – a quality and impact
toolkit for social enterprise5 to compare and identify
possible externally validated models for evaluation.
Social Accounting and Audit6 was identified as the
20
PART A: Experiences from charities and social enterprises
most appropriate ‘holistic accounting and reporting
tool’. This was because:
• It covers a full range of performance and impact
issues.
• Stakeholders’ perspectives feed into the
organisation’s planning and measurement
process.
• It is flexible and can be combined with other
‘proving and improving’ tools.
There were, however, questions raised about the
extent to which social accounting and audit would
give objective, external, benchmarked verification.
Setting up the social accounting process forced the
organisation to specify and refine its mission, core
values and objectives. The social accounting
framework is reflected in the organisation’s plan,
internal audit and the agendas of the Board and its
committees. This enables impact reporting to be an
integral part of the day-to-day work of the
organisation, rather than an add-on.
The first social accounts were produced in 20072008, and each year since. This detailed impact
report is published and made available to all
stakeholders on request.
Balance7 (a ‘balanced score card’ for social
enterprises) has also been used as a selfassessment on an annual basis. To complement
this approach, Investors in People8 was selected as
the preferred quality performance improvement
system with external verification. The Investors in
People Standard was achieved in 2010.
The results of all of this activity are compiled in
draft social accounts for each reporting year, which
are then subject to a social audit, led by a social
auditor with a small panel of independent people
with no direct connection to Unlimited Potential.
A summary of the audited social accounts is then
published as the organisation’s annual report,
which is presented in a simple and attractive format
for all stakeholders. The summary is also inserted
as appropriate into the Directors’ report within the
annual accounts, which themselves reflect the
surplus made and that is available for
reinvestment.
learning from our experience
Some key learning from our experience includes:
• Have clear, agreed mission, core values and
objectives: The approach described above has
helped Unlimited Potential to be genuinely
transparent and accountable to stakeholders, to
ensure we focus our activities in line with a
clearly stated purpose, mission and objectives,
and to have consistent challenge about our
effectiveness. This enables informed reviews,
change and development.
• sharing learning from successes and failures
can build credibility: As a social enterprise
specialising in social innovation, we seek to solve
challenges that customers consider their most
difficult or even impossible to solve. By definition,
some of our responses may, at first, look unusual
and often without an existing strong evidence
base. They involve some risk, so we have to
reflect evidence of impact, wider value and
learning from things that go wrong to maintain
credibility and a constructive working relationship
with customers, which later allows expansion and
replication. We can honestly demonstrate our
results against our objectives to all stakeholders.
Our credibility lies within the processes used for
this, with learning from successes and failures
openly shared. The evidence produced both
internally and externally – together with external
evaluation and audit to verify it – supports this, so
that we can really know what is being achieved.
• Create the right culture: The steady
development over time of a culture which
embraces assessment and learning without fear
has been critical to the success of our approach.
• integrate impact into the organisation’s work:
The integration of the social accounting or
impact framework within the organisation was
particularly important. It is effectively the same
as the framework of the organisation. In this way,
accounting and reporting of impact is what the
organisation does – and has to do – every day.
This has not only made the approach coherent,
but also minimised the associated workload,
which would have been disproportionate had it
been “bolted on”.
Although the approach has taken considerable time
and thought to implement, it has definitely been
worth it. Benefits have included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Unsolicited approaches with new work.
Partnership not transaction.
Trust to innovate.
Proof of concepts.
Growth despite (or because of) cuts.
Most importantly, people with happier, healthier
lives.
21
6. CitizENs ADViCE sErViCE: Supporting members to report on impact
Citizens Advice provides information, advice, advocacy and education. The service is delivered in
bureaux, online and by telephone. It delivers services nationally and locally, directly helping
2.1million clients with 7.1million problems in 2010-11 and indirectly helping 6.8 million people
though social policy work. Citizens Advice has an annual income of £62million (2010-2011)
Gerry Pimm, strategy, planning and performance manager at Citizens Advice, explains how
Citizens Advice can support 382 independent Citizens Advice Bureaux (CABs, members of the
Citizens Advice service) across 3,500 community locations to report on their impact
Why we value impact reporting
• so that our funders understand our value:
Impact reporting is a vital tool to demonstrate our
value in persuading local authorities and other
funders that their money should be invested wisely
and into our service.
• so that we can provide better service
planning: Impact information provides us with
business intelligence for allocating resources. For
example, where we provide most positive impact
could result in increasing resources in that area.
• so that we can motivate our staff and
volunteers to appreciate that our service is a
great place to work for: We are proud of the
work our frontline staff and 21,500 volunteers
undertake for the service and we want them to
have a demonstrable picture of what they have
achieved for their clients. We also want to
demonstrate to the local community why we are a
great place to work and volunteer at.
As a national body we collect evidence from our
members – independent CABs - and produce an
annual impact report that tells a story about what we
achieve for clients, communities and the wider
society.
Each bureau receives the national impact reports
and is encouraged to share with their colleagues,
stakeholders and funders. However, we also want to
ensure bureaux themselves can show and be proud
of their own local work and worth.
supporting our bureaux in finding
appropriate and proportionate systems
We do have an aspiration to do more to engage our
bureaux and workers. We want all our front-line staff
to know how they have helped their clients. Our
newly developed ‘Strategy Map’ will help to illustrate
this so that every member of the service knows their
part in helping to deliver our long-term goals and
22
vision of solving problems, changing lives. Long term
positive impact for clients is a key aim.
Finding appropriate and proportionate measurement
approaches is important for our members. Bureaux
come in all different shapes and sizes, with different
structures and governance arrangements. Resources
vary too. Therefore, whilst we communicate and
provide extensive guidance with a standard set of
tools, there is not a perfect model that all bureaux
can use consistently as resources are often limited.
There is also a complexity in that different funders
have different needs. One size certainly doesn’t fit
all. Our advice to our members is to engage with
funders at an early stage, particularly when bidding
for contracts, to discuss what is realistic to measure,
achievable and proportionate so that there is clarity
from the beginning.
Nonetheless, we are growing our support to our
bureaux by providing more templates and systems
so they don’t have to start from scratch. One
example is demonstrating impact as part of tendering
processes. Our ‘Standardised Impacts Document’ is
a tool that allows funders to receive reports on the
work that their local bureau is undertaking. It also
allows bureaux to demonstrate the value of their
outcomes.
We are also working to make impact reporting easier
for bureaux with user-friendly ‘web to print’ system
based templates and developing a sophisticated
Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system
that will allow bureaux to capture their outcomes in a
much more efficient and accurate way.
Measuring impact can be resource intensive and
complex, particularly when demonstrating real
accountability and credibility. However, by extending
our tools and engaging and supporting our bureaux
whilst sharing in our collective vision, Citizens Advice
is actively looking to demonstrate to our funders,
stakeholders, local communities and indeed our staff
and volunteers how we make a powerful difference.
PART A: Experiences from charities and social enterprises
7. st GilEs trUst: Applying economics
St Giles Trust works with offenders to help them resettle and break the cycle of re-offending. It
provides practical support to tackle any barriers which might be holding someone from moving their
life forward. Typically, this involves help with housing, improving skills, entering the workforce and
engaging with other services. St Giles Trust has an annual turnover of £5million with 56 statutory
funding streams and 25% from charitable trusts, corporates and high net worth individuals.
Rob Owen, chief executive of the St Giles Trust sets out how his organisation used economics to
demonstrate the impact of one of its services
When I took up the role of Chief Executive at St
Giles Trust in 2007, we already had an excellent
reputation for delivering high quality, effective
services. Our work had won multiple awards and I
sensed there was something distinct we offered
which should be identified and shared.
We had an established relationship with the then
head of NPC Martin Brooks, a former economist,
who was pioneering a completely new approach to
this through his newly established charity Pro Bono
Economics. It matches volunteer economists with
charities who wish to explore their impact and
results – effectively applying the principles of an
economic analysis to a charity’s work.
I identified what I felt to be a match made in heaven.
We were delivering Through the Gates, a vital
service which offered support to homeless prison
leavers returning to London. It isn’t rocket science to
figure out that people who are homeless on release
from prison are far more likely to re-offend.
Therefore, it makes sense to ensure someone has
somewhere to stay when they get out of prison.
Importantly, many of the caseworkers on this service
were reformed ex-offenders trained by us to become
caseworkers able to offer specialist support to their
clients. As prison leavers tend to be a very tricky
group to engage, using someone who has walked in
the same shoes as their client is a particularly
effective approach.
turning anecdotes to metrics
I knew that this service was hugely important. It
worked with clients who were at a medium to high
risk of re-offending and required intensive support.
A report of our work with a client in one London
borough who police described as a ‘one man crime
wave’ was claimed as having a direct impact on a
reduction crime figures. The London Probation
funding for this service was due to come to an end
so it was absolutely crucial that we proved its
impact in order to influence commissioners and
funders to continue to support it.
We were the first charity that Pro Bono Economics
worked with and matched with independent
economists Frontier Economics. It was agreed that
the purpose of the research would be to
demonstrate the presumed cost benefits of
reduced re-offending presented by Through the
Gates, balancing these against the costs of running
the service. We were also told in no uncertain
terms, that the report would be given access to
Police National Computer (PNC) data and would
be heavily scrutinized and peer reviewed across
Whitehall to make only our inputs directly
attributable to any success we had. It would be the
most robust report of its kind, having taken out all
and every ounce of counterfactual impact. If we
didn’t create value they would shout just as loudly
about it as if we did.
Using existing data in new ways to
show impact
Frontier Economics worked closely with our service
delivery teams in gathering data on a sample group
of clients we worked with under our Through the
Gates service. My team did not have to invest
unnecessary levels of time and resources into the
project – it caused minimum disruption and fitted in
with report backs that commissioners required
regardless.
Frontier Economics analysed information which
had been collected on 583 clients from August
2008 – January 2009. They compared this with
data against a 2007 cohort of national prison
leavers of a similar offending profile. It assessed
the impact of Through the Gates by comparing
national re-offending rates of the 2007 sample
against those of Through the Gates clients. It then
estimated cost savings associated with reduced reoffending and applied these to the impact of
Through the Gates. Ministry of Justice national reoffending statistics were used.
We knew we provided a first class service but even
we were taken aback when the initial findings came
23
in that our service saved the taxpayer £33 pounds
for every £1 invested. This was then reviewed
across a wide range of stakeholders and every
conceivable potentially counterfactual aspect
stripped away. Astonishingly the ratio was still a
remarkable result. Frontier Economics concluded
that Through the Gates delivered a conservative
cost benefit ratio of 10:1 i.e. for every £1 invested
in the service £10 in direct criminal justice cost
savings are delivered for the public purse. It also
demonstrated that Through the Gates reduced the
likelihood of re-offending by an additional 40%.
Communicating results and responding
to challenges
It was when we started to communicate the
findings of the research through ministerial
briefings, media work and a launch event that we
started to encounter challenges. Despite the
detailed evidence showing the effectiveness of the
service, and robust representations from Frontier
Economics and Pro Bono Economics, people were
cynical. We were told by academics that they
‘simply did not believe’ the findings. It would appear
– in the eyes of some – that we had achieved the
impossible, ‘that this had never been achieved
before’. Some even argued that we must have
cherry picked clients. The reality was that our
clients were reverse cherry picked, as we were
tasked to work with Probation referrals of the most
complex clients. Also remarkable was the fact that
the measurement for success was a binary
measurement. For many the penny did finally drop,
that if you are bold enough to do things radically
different you can get radically better results.
There is probably more than one reason for this
cynicism. This approach to impact measurement
was relatively new at that time and it was
completely different from the more conventional
approaches of academic research more commonly
used. Furthermore people didn’t believe St Giles
Trust could deliver such impact - we are a midsized, modest turnover charity but with huge
ambitions and we punch well above our weight.
24
The influence of the project on future
work and funding
Despite this, the project has been hugely important
and influential for us. Although the wider economic
climate and cuts to public funding meant that we
did not gain mainstream funding for Through the
Gates, the project was instrumental in bringing a
range of contracts our way and a legacy project
funded through voluntary income still provides
post-release support for prison leavers.
Perhaps most importantly, it has raised the profile
of our work and the nature of some of the issues
facing our clients. Somewhat frustratingly, the
legacy project – Meet at the Gates – is in a
vulnerable funding scenario again. However, we’ve
got the ammunition from this report to demonstrate
the impact of this type of service and show why it is
important.
It is always immensely powerful to be able to quote
positive feedback from your beneficiaries.
However, impact measurement needs to go one
step further. As charities fight hard for every penny,
it will be those that can evidence the value of the
work they have done and what positive benefits it
has provided for different groups who will be best
placed to weather the tough times ahead we all
face. At the same time however, with the sector
operating on ever-diminishing resources, a
balancing act needs to be struck on how much time
and money should be invested into this.
Our next impact report will be on our multi award
winning gangs service called SOS. The true impact
from SOS I feel confident will be even greater than
Meet at The Gates service both in terms ability to
reduce reoffending, and in terms demonstrating,
pound for pound, that this is a genuine
heavyweight contender. Now that’ll be impact
report well worth acting on.
PART A: Experiences from charities and social enterprises
8. AVENUEs trUst: Implementing an impact measurement programme
Avenues is a group of charitable social enterprises that provide high quality community based
support to adults and young people with a range of complex and challenging needs in London,
East Anglia and the South East. The Avenues Trust Group has an annual income of £26million.
Steve James, chief executive of the Avenues Trust Group, reflects on his experiences of
introducing impact measurement
Deciding to measure impact
Avenues had many individual examples of how we
have changed people’s lives, but no strategic
method of measuring our impact as an
organisation. With the encouragement of the board
(who were keen that we had evidence of impact), a
small internal group researched a variety of
approaches to measuring impact with the brief that
they must be robust, clear and measure the reality
of someone’s life.
selecting and rolling out the
programme
Professor Jim Mansell at the Tizard Centre,
University of Kent, had pioneered an approach
called Active Support 9 which scientifically
measured engagement levels. Put simply, the
approach measures the time someone is doing
something they had chosen to do. Active Support
was a suite of approaches which raised
engagement levels and provided evidence through
periodic measurement, compared to a baseline
taken before the new approach began.
Engagement is a good proxy for quality of life and
therefore a good evidence base to prove the
effectiveness of Avenues’ work.
‘The Avenues’ board agreed to implement Active
Support. The implementation programme had a
number of features:
• The process would be undertaken in all 50
residential homes and phased over three years.
• The whole organisation including the board and
non-support staff would undergo appropriate
training to understand the approach.
• Active Support was our chosen way of
supporting people with learning disabilities and
was the only way we would work and be
measured. In the words of one board member
“there was no way out”.
• Reporting was open both within the organisation
and outside.
• Everyone would know what we were doing.
• The process was transparent.
• Some measurements would be undertaken by
the University of Kent and they would moderate
a random sample of measurements undertaken
internally.
The initial training took place in 2006 and the
programme has now run for five years, providing a
significant body of evidence to prove that our
approach is effective and changes people’s lives
for the better – engagement levels have soared.
reflections on our experience
Every chief executive of a service provider says
they wish to measure the impact of what their
organisation does. However, if you implement a
comprehensive process to do this, it is difficult not
to feel a touch exposed. What if, despite your
conviction that you’re doing good stuff, the process
provides conclusive evidence that what you do
doesn’t work?
Reflecting on the implementation of our approach, I
think a certain amount of planning (and confidence)
is required. The organisational lessons I learnt were:
• The importance of getting everybody on board.
• The importance of being clear that Active Support
was the only way we did things, “no way out”.
• The importance of being transparent – whatever
happened, everyone would know.
• The importance of preparing everyone for
occasional bad news – what would our response
be? How would we improve things? What would
we tell people?
There have been a number of unintended
consequences of our approach. These include:
• Some staff left.
• The transformation of our learning and
development strategy moving towards team
based, not individual learning.
• A review of the role of first line managers
emphasising practice leadership, leading to a
comprehensive management and leadership
programme.
25
• The ability and importance to reflect back to
individual support workers the effectiveness of
their work. Particularly working with profoundly
disabled people, it is often difficult to measure
progress. Active Support is a robust tool to do
this, and is a fantastic motivator for staff when
they receive objective evidence of their
effectiveness.
An organisational advantage of adopting Active
Support has been in our contract negotiations with
commissioners. We can now prove effectiveness
and therefore value for money, particularly if
services appear expensive. With increasing
personalisation of social care the ability to give
individual people and their carers evidence that
what we do works is very potent. If you’re looking
for a service for your brother, you need to be
reassured that an apparently expensive provider
such as Avenues will be effective. Active Support
provides such evidence.
We also learnt that we are capable of successfully
executing a transformational project and if we could
do it once, we could do it again, addressing further
challenges in the future.
looking towards the future
We are now moving to a second stage of Active
Support which will measure the effectiveness of
our community based services, not just those
provided in residential homes, and are confident
that we will be able to provide similar evidence
of impact in the future.
My personal experience of implementing this
approach has been that it constantly challenged my
view that what we did worked. While this challenge
has not always been a comfortable experience, it is
a valuable one, and leads I am sure to better
services to those people we support.
26
PART A: Experiences from charities and social enterprises
9. ACtiON ON HEAriNG lOss: Reporting online
Action on Hearing Loss are a UK charity taking action on hearing loss since 1911, by: providing
support for people with hearing loss and tinnitus; providing day-to-day care for people who are deaf
and have additional needs; supplying communication services and training; offering practical
advice to help people protect their hearing; campaigning to change public policy around hearing
loss issues and supporting research into an eventual cure for hearing loss and tinnitus. Action on
Hearing Loss has an annual income of £41million (2010-2011).
Susanna Eriksson-Lee, Lindsay Hodgson & Pamela Muir at Action on Hearing Loss describe how
they moved from measuring outputs to reporting on impact and innovative approaches to reporting
online.
increasing our focus on our impact
Over the past few years we have been evaluating
our impact more and more at Action on Hearing
Loss. This has consisted of a number of core
components:
• Moving from monitoring what we do to
evaluating the changes that we make to people’s
lives.
• Involving users in this process.
• Putting in internal systems and processes that
make this easy for people to use.
• Communicating our impact in ways that are
accessible to stakeholders.
In so doing we have asked ourselves a series of
questions. What do we know about our impact?
How do we communicate it? What role can online,
electronic and digital formats play? Here we give a
snapshot of our journey to discover and implement
the answers to these questions, and set out how
we are using online reporting to ensure that we are
moving from outputs to impact.
What we
are doing?
What do we
want to achieve
Developing
srOi models
Evaluate change
instead of
activities
Outcomes
measurement in
Care and support
involve users
inspiring
curiosity
internal systems
and processes that
are easy to use
Outcones-focused
strategic planning
Communicate
our impact
Online impact
reporting
Engage
stakeholders
How are we moving towards impact?
Our work towards strengthening our evidence of
outcomes and impact has involved a range of
approaches set out in the diagram in figure 3.
These include:
• Developing SROI models.
• Working with staff to ‘inspire their curiosity’ in the
value of measuring change.
• Introducing outcomes-focussed strategic
planning.
Figure 3. Approaches towards strengthening evidence of
outcomes and impact
Two specific projects which are contributing to this
journey are outcomes measurement in our care
and support services and online impact reporting.
27
Outcomes measurement in care and
support services
Action on Hearing Loss supports 414 people in
care and support services. Leading change for
people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have
tinnitus, is the reason we exist as an organisation.
So, ensuring we work in a way that achieves the
greatest impact for the end user needs to be key to
everything we do.
As a result of this ambition, we have been doing
work to systematise the collection of data that
demonstrates the changes we’re making to
people’s lives. In particular, we have piloted and
are rolling out an outcomes measurement system
for each person in our care and support services to
use, supported by their support workers.
Drawing on the popular Outcomes Star system
from Triangle Consulting10, we have developed a
holistic way to map the progress that individuals
using our services make towards things that matter
to them. Using categories that make sense and are
significant to each individual, such as ‘you and
other people’ and ‘feeling good’, we can focus on
the things that are both important to the people
using our services and which directly correspond to
the things that are important to regulators and
funders.
We are currently in the process of developing these
measures into a bespoke online system, so that
outcomes and quality of service can be mapped
over all of our nationwide services over time. Our
decision to develop our own software in-house,
rather than sourcing pre-developed packages,
means that we can customise the level at which
service impact
service contracts
service developments
Action
on hearing
loss
Personal development
service management
1 Care & support
7 regions/3 service types
54 services
414 individuals
Figure 4 This diagram shows how reporting is aggregated and
what information is used for at each of the different levels.
28
data is collected, aggregated and reported. As a
result, individuals using services are empowered to
be in control of their own information in hard copy
format, the amount of time staff spend on inputting
data into the online system is reduced, and we can
ensure that we are only conducting large scale
analysis on information that is operationally and
strategically useful (see fig. 4).
Throughout this process online reporting plays a
crucial role in enabling us to show how we are
supporting people to change their lives.
Online impact reporting
Collecting and aggregating information on our
outcomes is vital in strengthening our evidence
base, increasing the robustness of our outcomes
and impact information, ensuring we are providing
the best services and, most importantly, leading to
the positive change in the lives of the people that
we support. Communicating this information to a
wider audience is, in turn, key to engaging our
supporters and the people that we are here to
support. But how do we do this?
The impact section of our website11, as well as
containing our Annual Report and impact report in
‘pdf’ format, presents a series of videos, each
aligned to a strategic theme. These take examples
of individual people and individual services and
bring to life the stories of change that underlie our
quantitative data.
The use of digital and online formats, which include
British Sign Language translations and narrative
titles, bolster the visual nature of the videos,
making the story of our impact accessible to the
people that support us and the people that we
support, allowing us to convey the qualitative
nature of our quantitative data in a relevant way.
In fact, by increasingly working online in the longterm we will make our impact information more
accessible to everyone that we interact with, in a
cost-effective, environmentally sustainable and
visual way that suits the people we serve better.
Consequently, we are focussing on inspiring our
staff to be curious about the outcomes they are
aiming to achieve, and on putting in simple online
systems that will make it easy for them to do this.
This is in order that we can move from monitoring
what we do to evaluating the changes we make in
people’s lives. In doing so we can shift from
outputs to impact, and succeed in working towards
a world where hearing loss doesn’t limit or label
people, where tinnitus is silenced – and where
people value and look after their hearing.
PART A: Experiences from charities and social enterprises
liNKiNG WitH tHE PriNCiPlEs: Some examples from the case studies
The table below looks at the Principles of Good
Impact Reporting and gives a few examples from
the case studies that demonstrate these in action.
These are not necessarily the only examples that
can be given and you may take much more from
Principles
the cases; however, this should provide some
insight into how the principles may be interpreted
and how these organisations have demonstrated
good practice in particular areas.
Example from the case studies
How
Clarity
• Sightsavers has developed the SIM card which clearly states the
overarching objectives of the organisation and links each objective with
activities, a scorecard for monitoring performance, and a traffic light system
indicating success levels.
Accessibility
• Action on Hearing Loss are moving towards online reporting of their impact
and have developed monitoring tools that are designed to be used more
effectively by their beneficiaries. This means that this key stakeholder group
are able to contribute more fully to the information collected and to access
reported information more easily.
Transparency
• Unlimited Potential produce a set of social accounts every year which are
based on a social audit. Credibility has been built by openly discussing
successes and failures.
• Sightsavers has a traffic light system which highlights to staff the key areas
where targets are being met and where there is room for improvement.
Accountability
• Action on Hearing Loss report yearly on their impact, and involve
beneficiaries at the heart of the monitoring and evaluation process enabling
them to input their views in the process.
• Unlimited Potential has worked to identify their key stakeholder groups and
to develop ways of communicating with these groups effectively, building
credibility through discussing failures and success.
Proportionality
• Citizens Advice Service has provided templates and tools to enable smaller
bureaux to improve their basic reporting and to provide better information on
the overall service.
• Body & Soul has appointed a staff role the ‘Health Outcomes Manager’ in
order to work across the staff team in the development of an impact strategy
that can benefit all areas of the charity’s services and is designed to fit with
the resource constraints of the organisation.
Verifiability
• St Giles Trust worked with Pro Bono Economics to demonstrate the value of
the ‘Though the Gates’ programme and subsequently sought verification of
the findings from the Home Office and academics.
• Unlimited Potential has made use of a variety of accreditation processes to
support the credibility of their reporting.
• RNIB Group has worked with London South Bank University to develop the
capacity of their organisation and ensure that bespoke systems are robust.
29
What
Clear purpose
• CAADA clearly demonstrates the evidence base behind their organisation
and the gap in terms of service provision that they fill.
Defined aims
• As a result of the research conducted into the effectiveness of their
programmes, CAADA has defined clear, measurable objectives against
which they can monitor success over the next 5 years. These include
halving the number of high risk victims from 100,000 to 50,000 and the
length of time it takes to victims to find effective help from 5 to 2.5 years.
Coherent activities
• As part of their ‘impact strategy’, Body & Soul has linked its programmes
and activities with overarching objectives based on the individual and the
wider context. Key performance indicators for each activity then clearly link
back to the charity’s aims.
• RNIB Group has used the increased knowledge and emphasis on impact
across the organisation to ensure that activities, such as advice services,
are aligned with the needs and objectives for their beneficiaries.
Demonstrated results
• Avenues Trust Group is able to demonstrate that their interventions work
against their aims and can explain this in simple terms through the data
they have collected on engagement of their beneficiaries.
• St Giles Trust has derived a monetary value of savings for every pound
spent on their programme and can report on the outcomes for their
beneficiaries.
Evidence
• Action on Hearing Loss makes use of video and written case studies as well
as empirical evidence in order to demonstrate impact.
• St Giles Trust is able to demonstrate savings to the public purse in their
communication with funders.
• Body & Soul has used their impact strategy to outline the evidence base for
their working model, enabling them to build on this as the monitoring
process continues.
Lessons learned
30
• The Avenue Trust Group has discussed some of the unintended
consequences of their approach which have included rethinking some of
the ways in which the organisation is managed.
PART B: Viewpoints from across the sector
PArt B: Viewpoints from across the sector
• 1. tElliNG AN iMPACt stOry
Sarah Hedley, NPC
32
• 2. DEMONstrAtiNG PErFOrMANCE iN tHE trUstEEs' rEPOrt
Amanda Tilley, Grant Thornton
34
• 3. lEADErsHiP: ExAMiNiNG tHE CEO’s rOlE iN DriViNG iMPACt FrOM tHE tOP
Nick Carey, ACEVO
36
• 4. liNKiNG FiNANCiAl AND PErFOrMANCE MANAGEMENt
David Membrey, CFG
38
• 5. sOCiAl iMPACt MEtHODs: ONE sizE DOEsN’t Fit All
Claire Coulier, The Social Impact Analysts Association (SIAA)
40
• 6. COMMUNiCAtiNG yOUr iMPACt
Jim Minton, DHA Communications
42
• 7. MEAsUrEMENt AND DEliVEry: A COrPOrAtE PErsPECtiVE
Jon Lloyd, Corporate Citizenship and LBG
44
• 8. A FOUNDAtiON PErsPECtiVE ON rEPOrtiNG: FrOM ACCOUNtABility BUrDEN tO
lEArNiNG OPPOrtUNity
Charles Keidan, Pears Foundation
46
PriNCiPlEs iNtO PrACtiCE: Concluding thoughts
48
31
1. tElliNG AN iMPACt stOry
Sarah Hedley
Research analyst, New Philanthropy Capital
In the Autumn of 2010, CFG, Acevo and NPC
started to work together to see if they could
establish a common set of principles for impact
reporting. Building on the earlier work of all three
organisations, collectively we hoped that we could
achieve much more by coming together to establish
a common language, and set of broad principles,
for charities and social enterprises to use.
These Principles of Good Impact Reporting, now
launched after a period of consultation, are
intended to help charities who want to improve how
they communicate their impact. They are not
intended to be a prescriptive set of rules that
charities have to comply with, but rather a
response to the repeated requests we received
from charities who wanted to know how to get
started on impact reporting.
We hope that, with the support and buy in of the
sector, these principles can become embedded in
how charities approach their communications. We
think they have the potential to help all sorts of
different audiences and stakeholders to engage
with and understand charities—from donors to
service users, from the media to charities’ boards.
Because, on NPC’s side at least, we can trace
back the origins of our work on impact reporting to
a desire to help the public understand charities
better.
the roots of the impact reporting
principles
During the winter of 2010, 10 UK charities received
£428,000 from public donations through The
Guardian newspaper Christmas appeal. The
charities selected as beneficiaries of The Guardian
readers’ generosity were chosen not because of
their big brands, not because of a slick advertising
campaign, nor because of their low overheads.
Instead they were selected because of their
answers to five simple questions:
•
•
•
•
•
What’s the problem that you’re trying to solve?
What are you doing to address it?
What are you achieving?
How do you know?
What are you learning?
These five questions have the appeal of simplicity,
logic and common sense. They would appear to be
pretty obvious questions to ask if you want to
understand what a charity is doing, and why. When
32
NPC published a report on charities’ impact
reporting in 2010, called ‘Talking about Results’,
these were the questions we put at the heart of our
review of charities’ reporting. Yet to find the origins
of these questions we need to go further back in
time, to a website called Intelligent Giving.
Helping the public to understand
charities
The origins of Intelligent Giving (IG) were about as
far as you can get from what is often referred to
today as ‘impact reporting’. The two founders of the
website, David Pitchford and Peter Heywood, were
both journalists who had been frustrated by the
lack of information available to ordinary donors
about which charities were most deserving of their
money. Their vision was for a Which? style website,
which reviewed charities against objective criteria
and used this to inform donors and help them make
decisions about who to support with their hardearned cash.
But what objective criteria to use? With 160,000
registered charities in England and Wales, finding
common and meaningful criteria that
accommodated the diversity and scale of the sector
was a real challenge. Administration or fundraising
costs were considered but ultimately rejected. This
was too shallow an analysis by which to judge
charities and could be perverse or misleading—a
charity tackling really entrenched problems needed
the right infrastructure and support to be able to
make a difference.
The solution that was eventually hit upon was
charities’ transparency and how well they reported
on their own work against the criteria set out by the
Charity Commission in the charity ‘Statement of
Recommended Practice’ (SORP).This felt right for
a number of reasons. From a practical point of
view, reporting is something that all charities (over
a certain size) are required to do by the Charity
Commission. It was also something that donors
were known to care about: the regular surveys of
public trust and confidence carried out by the
Charity Commission showed the importance to
donors of clear and honest reporting.
It also made sense intuitively. IG’s founders felt that
charities that were open about their work and
honest about their successes and failure were more
deserving of funding than those that weren’t. And a
transparent charity was more likely to give donors
PART B: Viewpoints from across the sector
the information they needed to make an informed
decision about whether to give to them or not.
its light under a bushel and telling nothing of this to
the world.
The first profiles rating charities’ transparency were
published in 2006. Reception to the profiles from
the charity sector was mixed. Some were sceptical
about the value of looking at reporting, and
doubted that anyone really read annual reports. But
it seemed that many charities were falling into a
vicious cycle: charities didn’t think donors wanted
to read annual reports so didn’t put any effort into
them; donors didn’t feel inspired by long technical
reports in black and white text, so didn’t read them.
I’m not sure we can honestly say that we have
cracked the conundrum—and we need to
understand more about the ways in which being
transparent helps a charity to do its job better. But
what we did discover was that, although IG and
NPC analysed charities through different lenses,
they agreed fundamentally on what an effective
organisation looks like. For both, an effective
charity is one that is focussed on achieving the
best results for its beneficiaries and is underpinned
by strong governance and management, a clear
strategy and a stable financial base.
But there were warm responses from charities that
saw IG’s reviews as an opportunity to improve the
way they communicated with donors. IG worked
with many charities to help them improve their
reporting, talking them through IG’s criteria, and
providing feedback on draft reports. It was
remarkable to see charities make huge strides in
their reporting over the course of just one year.
Most of the time, it seemed that charities already
had the information they need to report on. It was
just that they didn’t know that anyone wanted them
to report it.
linking transparency and effectiveness
In the summer of 2009, IG’s finances took a turn for
the worse and it faced the very real prospect of
closure. But NPC was interested in the possibility
of joining forces, and in September 2009, Intelligent
Giving formally became part of New Philanthropy
Capital (NPC). Although the merger was born out
of necessity, it was in many ways a natural union.
Core to both organizations was improving the
effectiveness of the charity sector by undertaking
analysis of charities and by increasing the flow of
information within the sector as a whole—by
working both with charities directly, and also with
donors and funders.
The merger of IG into NPC meant looking again at
the criteria for assessing charities’ reporting, and
because of NPC’s focus on charities’ impact and
effectiveness, working out how to review reports to
assess what charities were achieving. A first step
was to look at whether transparency could act as a
proxy for charities’ effectiveness—could charities’
reporting be used as a ‘quick and dirty’ assessment
of how effective they were likely to be? But there
was a fundamental problem: it was possible for a
charity to be painfully honest about its failure to
achieve anything for the people it aimed to help—
transparent, but not effective. It was equally
possible for a startlingly effective charity to be
doing fantastic work for its beneficiaries but hiding
This has proved to be a surprisingly powerful
insight because, for us, it showed that transparency
is not about total disclosure or about doggedly
putting anything and everything about a charity into
the public domain. Instead charities need to be
transparent about what is most important—what
they aim to achieve, and what they are achieving,
to change their beneficiaries’ lives for the better.
Building on the principles
Today, impact reporting is something that many
more charities are talking about and getting stuck
into. Faced with a difficult financial climate, and one
that shows no signs of rapid improvement, many
charities are looking with renewed vigour at how
they can focus their communications on the impact
they create. Many are driven by a belief that better
communication of their impact will lead to
increased access to funding from foundations,
philanthropists, and government. Others believe
that impact reporting is necessary for their boards
and management to make better decisions about
the allocation of scarce resources across their
programmes. We argue that both these aims can
be achieved if charities use the Principles of Good
Impact Reporting to structure the information they
collect and report.
More importantly, impact reporting is an agenda
that charities themselves appear to be driving
forward—as seen in the recent publication of the
Principles of Good Impact Reporting, brought about
through collaboration between some the of biggest
membership bodies in the sector, including NCVO,
CFG, the Institute of Fundraising and ACEVO. This
is good news. Charities have long complained that
they are often judged on the wrong things. By
making impact reporting something that is of the
sector, charities have a chance to set the agenda
about how they should be judged–not on admin or
fundraising costs but on the difference they make.
33
2. DEMONstrAtiNG PErFOrMANCE iN tHE trUstEEs' rEPOrt
Amanda Tilley
Not for Profit National Team, Grant Thornton
As charities have had to become more competitive
over every pound of funding, whether it is from
government, grant making bodies or from donors, it
is imperative that they make clear how they are
able to make best use of the resources available to
them to effect results against their objectives and
help their beneficiaries.
Regulation in this area is very limited, although the
Charities Statement of Recommended Practice
2005 (the Charities SORP)12 provides some
guidance on what trustees should report in respect
of the objectives, achievements and performance
of the charities. This means that guidance and
support is needed to make the reports as useful
and relevant as possible. This is similar to the
corporate listed world where listed companies
follow principles and guidance for much of their
narrative reporting. In this arena guidance and
governance practices have evolved through the
publication of reports such as the Smith Report13
and the Higgs Report14. Boards of directors have
followed the guidance over time and reviewed
other companies’ reports that promote best practice
so that the quality and depth of the reports has
shown significant improvement over time. The
Principles of Good Impact Reporting provide similar
guidance and opportunity for learning to those in
the charity sector.
As part of their role, trustees should already be
monitoring how charities are performing against
their stated objects. A good Trustees' Report will
publish this information so that those interested in
the charity, whether as a stakeholder or potential
donor or beneficiary, can see how the charity is
performing. The Trustees' Report should therefore
cover a number of both financial and non-financial
elements and is a good place to start when
improving reporting and moving into the area of
reporting on impact.
It is imperative that a charity is very clear on what it
wants to achieve before considering and reporting
how it is progressing against these aims.
Objectives of the charity
The best disclosures in the Trustees’ Report will
make the objectives of the charity very clear. It is
not enough to repeat what is included in the
governing document as this tends to be fairly wide.
Instead the report should:
34
• Give a clear description of the charity's main
objectives.
• Provide an explanation of the strategies which
have been designed to achieve these objectives.
• Show how the board expects the charity to
develop in the near future.
• Detail its long term plans.
• Provide information on trends and factors
affecting the results and achievements.
Choosing indicators of performance
Without clearly defining the charity's main
objectives it is impossible to provide clear and
relevant performance reporting. The most useful
performance reporting will specifically link results to
the charity's objectives and provide a clear
definition of what the results measure.
For some charities it can be incredibly difficult to
choose performance reporting measures. This may
be because a charity's main object is so long-term,
for example those charities which look at cures for
currently incurable diseases, or that is so wide, for
example helping children, that it will be necessary
to break down its overarching objective into more
detailed objectives or shorter term measures.
It is therefore critical that management and trustees
carefully consider how they rate their own
successes and failures. In the case of a cure for a
disease it may be the progress in the development
of a clinical trial, or the level of grants to research
scientists and the development of the research
funded. For charities considering large sections of
the population it may be to look at specific
elements of the population, for example, the
number of children the charity has helped in a
particular location or the number of elderly people
with income below a certain threshold.
Charities should as much as possible start from a
blank page, considering how they manage their
own organisation and how they measure
themselves internally; in an effective charity these
key measures will be the ones which also indicate
the impact of the charity. If the analysis of the
indicator takes excessive time or cost it is unlikely
to be a useful and relevant indicator for the
organisation and management should really
consider whether it is a key indicator at all.
The number of performance measures will vary
depending on the type of charity and what the
PART B: Viewpoints from across the sector
trustees and management feel are the key
indicators. For example, in the FTSE 350 the
average number of financial key performance
indicators is 5.3 in addition to 3.0 non-financial
indicators. This varies across industry groups from
a maximum average of 5.8 financial indicators in
the oil and gas industry and 6.7 non-financial
indicators for companies in the utilities sector. The
key point is to ensure that the indicators chosen
are easily measurable and really mean something
for the charity, enabling management to
understand how they are getting results and how
they manage the charity.
Disclosures of performance indicators
Once relevant indicators have been chosen it is
vital to give sufficient information as to how the
figures are calculated and the source of the data.
It is important to show whether it is internal or
external and how it has been verified so that it is
credible.
The performance, whether it is financial or nonfinancial, should be comparable to prior years'
figures and explanations of the movements should
be given. As previously mentioned, if this exercise
is not part of an effective charity's management
process it is unlikely that the measure chosen is
really a key performance indicator.
Ensure relevance
Overall the key to useful and effective narrative
reporting, in whatever sector, is to ensure that it is
relevant to the organisation and the users of the
information. Impact reporting is a real opportunity
for charities to think about what they want to
achieve and how they are able to measure their
achievements. For those now embarking on impact
reporting the exercise of choosing how to measure
impact can highlight the elements of the charity
which are most important and where resources can
be best utilised.
The easiest and quickest way to report
performance may be to use boiler-plate generic
information but this will be of little use either
internally or externally. However, reporting
against well-considered and relevant
performance indicators will assist both
management and readers of the report to really
understand what a charity stands for and what it
is achieving in its chosen area.
35
3. lEADErsHiP: ExAMiNiNG tHE CEO’s rOlE iN DriViNG iMPACt
FrOM tHE tOP
Nick Carey
Policy officer, ACEVO
Impact reporting is a highly pertinent issue for third
sector leaders of organisations of all size and
description. There is a strong consensus across
the sector that it is a vital undertaking for reflective,
high-performing organisations and that it is
becoming increasingly important in a world of
greater competition and restricted financial
resources. Furthermore, as the voluntary,
community and social enterprise sector moves
increasingly towards a more contractual and
outcomes based funding model (particularly in
public service provision), being able to demonstrate
the efficacy of what you do is of paramount
importance. Further developments in
commissioning, such as payment by results, will
mean this trend is continually reinforced over the
coming years. This short article explores why it is
important for third sector chief executives to take
the lead in developing impact focussed
organisations, the benefits that it can derive and
where it fits in their own role.
Where does impact reporting fit into the
CEO’s role?
The CEO’s role can be thought of as roughly
comprising three main aspects – firstly, working
with the board; secondly, leading the organisation;
and, thirdly, promoting the organisation. Where
does impact reporting fit into this model? Popular
prejudice suggests that it fits almost exclusively
with the final aspect, but when analysed closer it is
clear that impact reporting holds resonance right
across the CEO’s role.
Working with the board
Boards of trustees are ultimately accountable for
their organisation and what it does, bearing
responsibility for its direction and strategy.
However, for a variety of reasons, some
organisations’ governance is not always as
effective or focussed as might be hoped. Most
notably trustee discussions can sometimes stray
from the strategic level into the operational, which
is more appropriately the preserve of the executive.
This situation is then in danger of developing a
strategy which seeks to deliver what works best for
the organisation rather than its beneficiaries. A vital
role for the chief executive in working with the
board, particularly the chair, is to ensure that the
trustees can remain focussed at a high level forming strategy, not how to implement it. By
36
encouraging an organisational focus and reporting
on the impact that the organisation makes, the
chief executive is better able to demonstrate the
macro benefit that their organisation delivers – the
outcomes rather than the outputs. This gives
greater accountability to stakeholders and places
trustees in a much stronger position to make sure
that the organisation is focussed on its
beneficiaries and strategically aligned to deliver the
most effective impact possible. This should include
benchmarking against similar organisations and
examining where external alliances (in any form)
may deliver better outcomes for service users.
the CEO’s management role
The CEO is responsible for supervising what the
organisation does, how it does it and how it can
improve what it does. Importantly from the impact
reporting perspective, the CEO is best placed to
evolve an organisational culture based on the
outcomes and impact that their organisation
delivers rather than its process, inputs and outputs.
These internal drivers can be institutionalised over
time and may result in a loss of focus from the
original purpose of the organisation.
In working towards a culture focussed on the
benefit that an organisation delivers, it is critical to
have strong leadership from the top that is able to
take staff with their vision. Steve James’ case study
is an excellent example of how a CEO can lead an
impact-focussed culture change within an
organisation. Furthermore, as discussed earlier in
this publication impact reporting is based around a
cycle. This traces the same steps as any effective
business cycle by following the well-established
planning, performing, assessing and reviewing
stages. As a result, a well-developed impact
reporting process can help organisations in their
corporate operations by identifying organisational
strengths and weaknesses. In doing so, an
effective impact report can enable organisations to
embark on a process of continual improvement in
delivering impact – not just by honing their focus on
outcomes, but by improving internal process and
systems.
Promoting the organisation
Having a solid impact report is a central and very
effective means for leaders to publicise their
organisations and attract funding. Funders and
PART B: Viewpoints from across the sector
commissioners are increasingly focussed on
achieving the maximum impact that their money
can deliver – getting the biggest bang for their
buck. It is therefore vital for organisations seeking
to attract such funding that they are able to
demonstrate what they do for two main reasons.
Firstly, impact reporting will (hopefully) show that
their organisation delivers significant, objective
benefit and adds value, thereby making their case
for funding. Secondly, with increasing numbers of
common metrics emerging, impact reporting can
facilitate a degree of informed comparison between
organisations and create a competitive advantage
for organisations within a marketplace. In this way,
it encourages organisations to continually improve
their performance in order to remain competitive for
funding.
the organisation can make the most of its learning
experience and implement change. There is, after
all, no right or wrong answer about impact reporting
– we are all learning on this journey together – but
organisations will need strong and dynamic
leadership to keep them focussing and improving
on the benefit that they deliver.
Why should the CEO be leading this
process?
One of the most frequent reasons why
organisations do not feel they get as much as
hoped out of the impact reporting process is
because they see the end point as a static
document or report. Key to deriving the maximum
benefit is by progressing the organisation around
the impact reporting cycle and then repeating the
process – the end result is then not just a report
that sits on a shelf – it is a continual learning
process for the whole organisation. This is the key
reason why the CEO must take a lead in the impact
reporting agenda. Not only must the organisation
be engaged in an impact focussed culture, but also
there needs to be buy-in and implementation
across the organisation to the impact reporting
cycle. The chief executive is the one person in a
position to ensure this. Their buy-in is particularly
vital in the review stage where findings from an
impact reporting cycle can be taken forward and
recommendations to improve the efficacy of the
organisation are implemented. Without the CEO’s
backing, the whole process runs the risk of
resulting in another report gathering dust in a
drawer. However, with the CEO’s backing, this can
be a powerful document which enhances and
focuses the organisation both internally and
externally.
This is not to say that the chief executive and only
the chief executive should be driving the impact
reporting process – as can be seen from the case
studies, there are numerous potential approaches.
However, the CEO must be fully bought into the
process if real change is to be effected and the
maximum benefits obtained.
The chief executive’s role is critical in ensuring that
37
4. liNKiNG FiNANCiAl AND PErFOrMANCE MANAGEMENt
David Membrey
Deputy chief executive, CFG
Implementing the ideas behind the Principles of
Good Impact Reporting in a meaningful way,
making the coherent link between objectives,
activities and outcomes, will inevitably influence
organisational strategy, evaluation and resource
allocation.
For organisations to be signed up to this agenda
there needs to be buy-in at the top with board-level
support. There are also strong roles beyond the
executive to drive the principles throughout the
organisation. The finance and resources function in
most charities is in a unique position in terms of the
influence and reach it has, both at the strategic end
and in terms of its relationship with other core
functions and the frontline staff.
The traditional role of the finance team is to
consolidate financial information and report it in an
appropriate form. Thinking about how information is
to be communicated within the accounts, and to the
board, comes naturally to the finance professional.
The good contemporary finance team has a
functional communication network across the
organisation and is used to dealing with complex
information transfer within this network.
Requirements within the Charity SORP for
narrative information on how the organisation
achieves its public benefit aims, has also
encouraged consideration and integration of more
varied data within the normal reporting cycle.
When it comes to improving the way a charity
collects performance information and reports it,
finance teams have a lot to bring to the table.
Below we explore some of the roles the finance
function can take in order to promote
implementation of the principles in their
organisation.
the critical friend
It is important that those with the knowledge and
skills in understanding data representation are
accessing the information that the charity is
collecting and reporting. Inferences made about the
achievements of a service should be robust. Often
the skills for ‘quality control’ are present within an
organisation but are not being utilised simply
because the information is not passed on beyond
the operational level, or because it is not
demanded past it. When an organisation has
invested in developing internal knowledge of
research and monitoring techniques, creating a
38
primary relationship between those individuals and
other teams is important.
At the same time as being a sort of critical friend
when it comes to quantitative data, it is important
that qualitative data is valued by those dealing with
organisational finances. Effective charity finance
teams move beyond the numbers and recognise
the importance of the story told and those benefits,
or unintended consequences, which are sometimes
not captured by measurement techniques.
Attribution of monetary value is often attractive to
those managing finances, demonstrated by high
levels of interest in SROI. However, it is important
that ‘quality control’ is appreciated from the
opposite direction, with the expertise of operational
staff contributing to financial analyses and
judgements of efficiency. Having a direct
relationship between performance management
and finance teams within the organisational
structure is essential.
Parallel consolidation of information
One way of linking the financial and performance
monitoring functions is to think about the parallels
between the processes embedded in each of them,
collating the information and bringing it to the top.
The finance team should be linking with those in
performance monitoring throughout the year,
similarly to how they may be communicating with
budget holders. This is not simply a link that should
be made at the point of reporting. In a smaller
organisation it might be the case that the
information that is collected is not being collated
and is considered separately to the organisation’s
finances. Pulling data together and paralleling with
the income and expenditure of a charity will
significantly impact on the way an organisation
makes funding decisions. It will also link this
information more intuitively with the reporting cycle.
re-shaping the way we talk to the
board
One of the ways that a charity can take a big step
in making impact more salient within internal
processes is for senior managers to think about the
way they report to the board. Most senior finance
professionals in the sector are familiar with the
scenario where the numbers reported at board
level (perhaps in line with pre-set financial
performance indicators such as basic costs,
PART B: Viewpoints from across the sector
generated income or other outputs) don’t offer any
context. This can sometimes lead to internal
grapples over assumptions relating to what the
data tells us. Ask yourself, what do the numbers
you take to the board actually mean?
There will always be a point where the figures
simply don’t add up; but we should all be thinking in
the broadest terms about social value and quality.
Just as many charities are guided, or limited, in the
information we collect by the whims of funders and
the perception of what donors want, we are all
often guilty of falling into the same traps with our
trustee boards.
The challenge is for the head of finance to exert
influence on the board by changing the way they
are reporting figures back to them. The board
should have a good grasp of what the organisation
communicates within all of the individual Principles
of Good Impact Reporting, and how this ties in with
resource allocation and the working model. Not to
be tokenistic, this needs to be linked with financial
information and should feed meaningfully in to
strategic decision making.
telling people what you do, how you do it and what
you have learnt along the way – rather than a
reactive or defensive approach to those that
challenge.
In an increasingly competitive funding environment,
finance professionals are guiding their charities
through some difficult times and are exploring
some new and exciting funding options. However,
being able to demonstrate your achievements and
the value of your activities is essential, whether
entering into new service delivery markets or
exploring social investment.
Therefore I will leave you with one last thought. As
well as thinking about the risks of investing in better
reporting and starting to apply the principles, start
to think about the very real risks of not doing so.
thinking about risk
In 2011 CFG and Cass Business School released a
piece of research on the state of impact reporting in
the sector. It revealed that although there was a
general appetite to do more in this area, there was
a strong sense that the barriers to reporting on
performance and opening this information up more
widely, were a major set-back. For many, the
perceived upfront investment was the biggest
concern. There are also very real commercial
considerations. To put it simply the information we
think donors want is not what they would
necessarily get, both in terms of the overheads of
running an organisation, and the acceptance of
failures. Although outcome measurement and
evaluation has benefits, changing the way we
communicate this is seen as a risk, which some
charities don’t feel they can absorb.
Charities are used to thinking about such
considerations as part of their risk management
processes. Reputational and income risks always
feature highly on the risk register. However, behind
the Principles of Good Impact Reporting is a belief
that creating a more open, transparent environment
will put brakes on the perpetuation of
misconceptions of the way charities work, and
promote recognition of the professional status of
those that work in the sector. We need to move the
emphasis away from arbitrary measures of
effectiveness. This is a proactive approach –
39
5. sOCiAl iMPACt MEtHODs: ONE sizE DOEsN’t Fit All
Claire Coulier
Manager, The Social Impact Analysts Association (SIAA)
We often hear how little consensus there is about
social impact analysis, and how fragmented its
practice is. In part, this is because the term impact
is widely used but poorly defined. This means that
a great many methodologies and tools can be said
to measure some aspect of impact. And information
about how to scope the work or choose one
method over another is scattered and confusing at
best.
Many existing methods have evolved to suit
different types of organisation across the public,
private and third sectors15. There is also evidence
that most organisations assess their impact in
response to external pressures – that is, to prove
their value for money to existing and potential
funders – rather than to allocate resources more
effectively, inform strategy or increase staff
morale16.
Growing consensus around principles
Yet there is some evidence that we are moving
towards consensus around the principles of social
impact analysis, underpinned by initiatives such as
the Inspiring Impact group in the UK, the
development of Social Report Standards in
Germany, and SIAA’s own review of existing sets of
principles for social impact. The latter aims to
identify the gaps in existing sets of principles that
govern different aspects of social impact analysis –
including scoping the work, measuring, analysing,
reporting and using the results. While the work is
still ongoing, our suspicion is that some principles,
such as stakeholder involvement, are more widely
shared than others at the moment; and that there
are relatively fewer guidelines about scoping
different methods and using the results of social
impact analysis.
Diversity of methodologies
Despite this, there are many examples of
organisations effectively using different methods to
both improve their internal processes and prove
their value externally. The following organisations’
experiences demonstrate how different methods
can work for different goals.
A clinical outcomes measurement
system
First, the Brandon Centre, a small charity with an
income under £1 million, has shown that impact
40
analysis can lead not only to service improvements
internally, but also influence policy and practice at a
national level. The Brandon Centre provides free,
confidential support to 12-25 year olds
experiencing mental and sexual health problems.
The Centre uses a clinical outcomes measurement
system to assess changes in their service users’
mental health at regular intervals, and evaluates
the impact of psychotherapy. As a result, they know
that 47 per cent of young people who receive
treatment over a year experience an improvement
in mental health. New Philanthropy Capital
considers their evaluation system one of the most
sophisticated they have seen.
The Brandon Centre also ran the UK’s first
randomised controlled trial (RCT) of Multisystemic
Therapy (MST), in partnership with Camden and
Haringey Youth Offending Services. The aim was to
find new ways to help serious young offenders who
don’t respond to more conventional counselling.
The results of the RCT, which concluded in 2010,
indicated that MST has a significant impact in
reducing criminal and aggressive behaviour and
institutionalisation among young offenders. This
has helped the Brandon Centre not only in its own
work, but has built up the health sector’s
understanding of how best to tackle serious
offending among young people.
social impact research and srOi
WRVS is a UK charity that uses volunteers to
provide practical help to older people. WRVS was
struggling financially when it recruited Lynne Berry
as chief executive in 2007. Lynne wanted to
evaluate the charity’s services to ensure they were
meeting WRVS’ mission and users’ needs. The
organisation commissioned social impact research,
later coupled with an SROI analysis, undertaking
an evaluation of three types of impact relevant to
all its services: benefits to older people's wellbeing, tangible benefits (such as living
independently), and perceptions of services.
This process and an ongoing commitment to
embedding evaluation within the organisation has
helped give it the direction it needed. Information
on which services worked and which didn’t was
used to reform and improve services – some of
which were previously thought to work well, such
as the community centres for instance. Though the
findings of the impact research and SROI analysis
have also helped WRVS to strengthen its case vis
PART B: Viewpoints from across the sector
a vis funders, this has not yet translated into
significant new funding.
Adopting an existing framework
Oxford charity Elmore Community Services (ECS)
is a charity that supports vulnerable people with
multiple and complex needs, such as mental health
and drug dependency, who fall through the gaps in
government provision. ECS assesses its impact to
ensure it is effectively supporting its service users,
as well as to demonstrate its effectiveness to
funders. For a relatively small organisation with an
annual income around £300,000, ECS is
committed to impact measurement, creating a
comprehensive monitoring system that it uses
imaginatively despite considerable difficulties in
measuring some areas of its work.
The organisation uses the Outcomes Star – a
framework developed by Triangle Consulting, with
the support of St Mungo’s and the London Housing
Foundation – as the basis for their measurement
work, tracking the charity’s impact across ten
criteria, including motivation and taking
responsibility; offending; and managing tenancy
and accommodation. Progress is measured on a
ten-point scale, enabling the charity to track
progress for individual clients across a number of
different problems.
ECS has used the monitoring system to better
refine and target its services. It found that it was
able to have the greatest success with service
users with the most entrenched problems, rather
than for the client group as a whole. This
encouraged the charity to focus more attention on
those people with the most complex and extreme
needs. In addition, one of the benefits of the
Outcomes Star is that it is a relatively simple
system that charity staff can engage with, and
which makes visible the progress they have made
with clients, with attendant benefits for morale.
the future of social impact analysis
These are only a handful of the many organisations
who have used different social impact methods to
not only prove the value of what they do, but also
to improve their own performance. There is still
much work to be done to provide organisations with
a roadmap to social impact analysis, and to
signpost the strengths and weaknesses of different
methods and approaches. This is particularly the
case as social impact and social investing rise up
the policy agenda. Though one size does not and
may never fit all when it comes to different methods
of social impact analysis, the work in common
taking place in this field, underpinned by SIAA and
many others, are a timely and important first step
towards defining best practice.
For a much more comprehensive overviews of methods than space allows for here, see:
• NCVO’s Impact Measurement Guide to Resources, which provides an overview of existing
methods and tools with a particular focus on the UK voluntary sector.
• The US-based Foundation Centre’s Tools and Resources for Assessing Social Impact (TRASI)
compiles a large number of different approaches to social impact analysis, although it does not
provide much qualitative information about how best to use them
• ‘Social Impact Measurement: A classification of methods’: Ellie Liket and Karen Maas from the
Erasmus University Rotterdam compare a sample of thirty methodologies, which they categorise
by purpose, time frame, and focus on inputs vs outcomes among others. NB they find that only
eight of these methods actually assess impact holistically.
• The UK Charities Evaluation Services’ Monitoring and Evaluation Resource Guide, updated
2010, provides an overview of existing guides and resources for monitoring and evaluation.
41
6. COMMUNiCAtiNG yOUr iMPACt
Jim Minton
Senior Consultant, DHA Communications
As charities, we are all in the business of making a
difference to people’s lives. Measuring and
demonstrating the impact we make is now more
important than ever. But measurement means little
if it is not done in tandem with a clear
understanding of how it can be articulated to a
range of stakeholders and audiences.
Demonstrating and communicating the results you
achieve builds confidence and trust.
In our view, communicating impact is one of the
central tasks of every charity. Whether your
audience is government, partner organisations,
trusts and foundations, or the donating public, the
task must begin with understanding what
audiences need to know. Because impact is
nothing when it is not communicated.
think about how you show your impact
While within the organisation you, your team and
your trustees might all be clear about how much
you are achieving, you need to make sure that it is
also clear to everyone else. Once you feel you
have your evidence base, the key thing is to think
about how to show it. There are still too few of us
who spend time in this area before making this
decision.
It is essential – especially to stand out from the
crowd – to do this in a compelling and accessible
way. Few people want to read lengthy reports. And
even fewer should be expected to understand the
level of technical detail that your in-house experts
or academic partners do. We have seen many
times, quality research that falls down at this
important first hurdle. You can bring your
“evidence” of impact to life in a number of ways.
Visually
Using clear visual devices to communicate statistics
and facts should form an important part of your
approach. Technology is also changing the
relationship between charities, the public and those
that might provide financial support. This is not
simply about using digital communications to impart
information. There are numerous data visualisation
techniques that enhance the way you are seen on
the web and elsewhere. From representing your
impact through films, to the creation of infographics,
it now essential that we think about the potential of
digital to communicate impact.
42
Think about a table of data, for example about
numbers of advice sessions offered in different
English counties, and the percentage by which they
have risen since last year. This is great data –
showing how an organisation is doing more and
more for the people it exists for. And the table is OK
as a device – it will give the data in a clear way, so
people can see what is happening.
But better or alternative ways to present the same
data might be a colour coded map, so one can see
quickly what is happening in different areas of the
country. Or an online graphic over which the user
can hover a mouse to get a whole lot of additional
information about what is going on in a particular
county. In some cases, a simple cartoon, or
illustration might help particularly if your audience
does not speak good English.
There are lots of other ways that data can be
represented – it is important to find the right ways
for your organisation and stakeholders.
in narrative terms
While visual imagery is vital, it is still important, of
course to express things clearly in words. Case
studies are an essential part of this, and most
charities are by now pretty expert in finding ways to
let their beneficiaries describe their experiences so
that people can see the impact that has been made
on their lives.
Technology gives you the opportunity to create
many things including video case studies or
interactive discussions with clients or beneficiaries
so others can find out more.
The case study approach need not just be limited to
beneficiaries. How much more engaging might it be
to listen to a Resources Director – on a podcast for
example – talking about an organisation’s financial
performance, and explaining what the various
figures in a set of accounts mean – rather than just
having the figures in a table. You should, of course,
still present the full figures, but you can bring them
to life with some injection of “personality”.
It is the same with partnerships – a case study
written or narrated by a partner may have more
impact than one you write yourself. Or advocacy –
supporters and politicians saying why they support
your organisation is also a powerful tool.
PART B: Viewpoints from across the sector
As well as case studies, there are other ways that
you can bring data to life using words. Think about
metaphors: is something the size of a postage
stamp or a football pitch? Were there enough
people coming through the doors each week to fill
a double decker bus, or the Royal Albert Hall?
These may sound trivial examples – but it is so
important to find ways of making numbers
meaningful to people. Find parallels that will work
for your organisation.
What kind of reporting will have the
most impact?
experience or feedback, is a real positive in terms
of building and sustaining trust.
So, think about what you want to demonstrate, and
be creative about how you show it. Think carefully
about the evidence, and how you bring it to life.
And choose the right mechanism for your
organisation, and for your stakeholders so that it
engages and inspires them in your work.
You know you are making an impact. Make sure
everyone else does too.
Finally, remember you are not slave to the printed
report. Previously a “once a year” document
showcasing achievement and impact was the
expectation, and indeed pretty much the only
option. Now technology means there are many
more ways of being creative. Some of the best
impact reports aren’t reports at all. They are online
presentations, or films, or interactive “games”.
Crucially, online or digital presentations allow
organisations to be dynamic.
Of course, publications are still important. There is
some gravity, some sense of importance and
permanence about a well-produced, “physical”
report. But there are so many advantages of doing
something digitally or online, even in addition to a
report. As well as being replicable – anyone can
forward a link or web address to many others or
share it on social networks. Many of the interactive
features described above are only possible with a
more flexible format.
Communication using technology is also about
ensuring that stakeholders can interact with what
you are telling them. It literally gives them a stake
in your issue by allowing them to share your
information, to comment on it, and even to help
shape it. In practical terms this can mean placing
your impact data at the centre of online networks.
Look on Twitter for five minutes and the non-profits
that are cutting through the digital noise are the
ones that make their information not just accessible
– but part of a conversation. Of course, central to
this is the importance of having a clear and
compelling argument; a narrative if you like. But,
once you are clear about your message, impact is
both communicated and increased when it invites a
response.
In an era when we are all under scrutiny, to have
dynamic ways of reporting impact, which allow
people to look at how you are doing at any point
through the year and contribute their own
43
7. MEAsUrEMENt AND DEliVEry: A COrPOrAtE PErsPECtiVE
Jon Lloyd
Senior consultant at Corporate Citizenship and the manager of LBG
Beginning on common ground
“Good impact reporting helps beneficiaries,
volunteers, donors and other supporters
understand and engage with a charity’s vision. It
also helps staff and trustees focus on results and
work to achieve their vision” – Prospectus for
Principles of Good Impact Reporting
Excellent! This understanding puts charities and
the most progressive corporate donors on common
ground. In this article we examine how progressive
corporate donors reached their current position and
what the implications are for charities. We then
suggest a way forward.
to be less complex and clearer than social and
public policy issues. Consequently businesses
put a premium on clarity of purpose.
Therefore the first ‘what’ that charities must
communicate is what they exist to do. What is
the problem that they exist to tackle? What is the
change that they are committed to bringing
about? A charity will significantly improve its
case if it presents some metrics setting out the
size, scope and nature of the issue that it is
tackling.
Why? This is a result of the mainstreaming of
corporate community support.
• Business is about results: The second ‘what’
that charities must communicate is that they
measurably secure results. Staff in a corporate
community function have to fight hard to secure
their budgets. They want to invest their
resources where they will make a provable
difference. They face a near-overwhelming set of
competing calls on the resources. They are most
likely to invest in a charity that can show that its
previous activities have delivered measurable
change. They are most likely to select the
proposal that best shows that it will measure
‘before’ and ‘after’ convincingly.
Community programme staff have been obliged to
justify their budgets by what they achieve not how
much they give. The focus is on the measurable,
short- and long-term benefits created for the
community and the company. Companies want to
be known for the positive change that their support
has helped effect, not for the ‘generosity’ of their
giving.
• Business is about efficient use of resources:
The ‘what’ here is two-fold. To maximise the
chances of success a charity must show that it is
lean and efficient with not unreasonable
overheads. Secondly, a charity must show that it
is inventive in using the resources at its disposal.
Some of the new generation of social
entrepreneurs do this very successfully.
To increase internal buy-in, corporate donors seek
voluntary sector initiatives relevant to their core
business in terms of impact, geography, workforce
and consumers. Selecting initiatives that are both
more relevant and measurably effective means that
(some) corporate donors are willing to enter into
large, measured, multi-year commitments.
• Businesses learn from experience: or rather
successful businesses do! Here is a further
‘what’ that charities will benefit from
communicating: showing how they use
experience to create a constant loop of
innovation and improvement.
two decades of a corporate journey
Compared to twenty years ago, today’s corporate
donors do much more measurement; are more
interested in outputs and impacts; and are more
willing to commit big sums of money over a number
of years.
implications for what charities should
communicate
Clarity of purpose, provability of outcomes and
effectiveness of delivery are key. All of these have
implications for measurement.
• Businesses value clarity and simplicity: This
is hardly surprising as business challenges tend
44
implications for how charities should
communicate
The six principles proposed through Principles of
Good Impact Reporting are: clear purpose, defined
objectives, coherent activities, demonstrated
results, evidence and lesson learned.
Measurement runs through these like a golden
thread.
PART B: Viewpoints from across the sector
inputs
How?
Cash, time, in-kind,
management costs
Why?
Charitable gift, community
investment, commercial
initiative
What?
Cause, e.g. health, young
people, social welfare
Where?
Location
Outputs
Community benefits:
Numbers helped ect.
impacts
Community impacts
How beneficiaries are
better off
leverage
Extra funds raised
Business benefits:
Employee engagement
Press coverage etc.
Business impacts
How the company is
better off
Figure 5 The LBG Model
Increasingly corporate donors are using the
London Benchmarking Group model
(http://www.lbg-online.net/) to measure and
manage the inputs, outputs and impacts and, in so
doing, to increase the effectiveness of their
programmes.
LBG has had a long gestation. Its origins can be
traced to an internal challenge to the Community
function of the NatWest bank. As part of a costcutting exercise the function was faced with the
question: ‘Just what impact do you have through
the millions you ‘give away’?’
As the six principles listed by the Principles of
Good Impact Reporting recognise, there is no
single measure for impact. Rather an assessment
of impact is built upon a platform of measurement
of input costs incurred, along with business and
community benefits created. The LBG model
provides a common methodology and vocabulary
for these that is being used successfully by both
businesses and charities.
After Our vision comes Our Impact, with the main
claim: “As a result of our work 79% of people feel
their neighbourhood is getting better”, underpinned
by numbers and measurement. This precisely
meets the needs of corporate community
programme managers. In light of this, it is
unsurprising that groundwork features in two of the
four examples on the LBG website.
The Principles of Good Impact Reporting provide
an excellent model for charities and will be
welcomed by business. Undergirded with a
commitment to measurement they can have a
transformative effect. We commend the LBG model
as a way of consolidating that change.
Building on common ground
The four examples given on the LBG website17
show corporates and charities already building on
the common ground. They are using measurement
for common benefit. This is opening the way for
tackling impact.
Groundwork is involved in two of the projects cited.
It is exemplary in explaining its vision and impact
clearly from its home page18. The vision is set out
in simple language and the claim: “We create real
change” is supported by five short supporting
points.
45
8. A FOUNDAtiON PErsPECtiVE ON rEPOrtiNG: FrOM
ACCOUNtABility BUrDEN tO lEArNiNG OPPOrtUNity
Charles Keidan
Director of Pears Foundation and co-author of Family Foundation Giving Trends
The status quo in reporting by charities to funders,
both public and private, can be a demanding and at
times chaotic process involving the provision of
different information to different organisations at
different times and in different formats. The
information supplied is usually a mix of data on
inputs, outputs and outcomes. This data is
sometimes combined with an explanation that
things worked out the way they intended and
accompanied by a request that the exercise –
otherwise known as the funding cycle – should be
repeated. Moreover, much money in the funding
cycle is directed – or earmarked - to specific
projects, known as project funding, which can
necessitate a further round of reports to funders.
On one level the fundamentals of the funding and
reporting cycle outlined above are functional and
help to ensure procedural accountability. One party
transfers resources to another party and is held
accountable for the use of such resources. In the
case of public funding to charities, that party is the
tax payer, represented by the government, who
want ‘evidence’ that their money is spent according
to its intended purpose. In the case of private
funding, that party is the individual citizen engaged
in private action for public purposes, who also want
‘evidence’ that their money has made a difference.
So the reporting arrangements that have become
the norm and staple of the charitable sector are not
without merit or logic. However, at a time of scarce
public resources and the rebalancing of private and
public sector funding to charities in favour of the
private sector, this publication may offer a timely
opportunity to explore how the status quo can be
improved and what role foundations, who comprise
an increasingly significant and influential part of the
charitable sector, can play?
the foundation perspective
From a foundation perspective, the current
paradigm, with its division between funder and
funded, is problematic. Of course funder and
funded organisations do different things and the
latter tend to be more operational. But the problem
with the division in relation to reporting is that can
lead to wasted effort, missed opportunities and
misunderstandings.
Common amongst these is the notion of the
‘reporting burden’ which reflects a sense that
46
reporting is a constraint to be managed or
overcome rather than an opportunity to improve
performance and impact and work together to
improve society.
In its 2008 publication, ‘Turning the Tables’ New
Philanthropy Capital identified some of the factors
which tend to increase the burden of reporting on
charities. These included the numbers of funders,
the aims of funders, the length and type of funding,
the timing and format for reporting, the negotiation
of reporting, and the source (public or private) of
funding.
All these factors can influence the reporting
relationship between organisations for better or
worse. My concern is that the way relationships are
framed between funder and funded can focus
charities on the wrong questions not only
increasing cost but also, and more importantly,
diverting them from their mission.
That is why the Principles of Good Impact
Reporting, explored in this publication, can be an
important watershed for those concerned to see a
more functional and professional charitable sector.
The Principles can potentially re-focus charities on
important questions that are key to their
performance specifically: their purpose, objectives,
coherence, results, delivery, evidence and learning.
If charities can communicate their impact according
to these principles then the challenge to funders is
to also make the shift to a new paradigm of
expectations in their relationship to charities. This
paradigm should be related to investing in the
mission of charities and a sense of partnership with
them. This should avoid the old project fundingreporting model but also be cautious about the
venture capital style metrics which are not always
appropriate to the difficult social issues that
charitable organisations seek to address. What is
needed are strategic partnerships between
different parties based on an alignment of aims, a
willingness to learn and the potential to progress
together in tackling difficult and complex social
issues.
steps foundations should take
Specifically, there are a number of measures that
leading professional foundations – for example the
largest 100 family foundations who should be at the
PART B: Viewpoints from across the sector
vanguard of progressive private funding – can
adopt.
First, as many of us as possible should sign up to
the Principles of Good Impact Reporting. Our
collective authority would put pressure on other
foundations as well as government to take these
principles seriously. If charities, which are not
foundations, can sign up to the Principles then why
shouldn’t Foundations, which are also charities join
them? All charities have a responsibility to
demonstrate public benefit, and less grandiosely,
the tax deductions they receive for producing them.
That includes foundations.
Second, we can all work harder to put these
principles into practice in our own organisations in
relation to our partners. We at Pears Foundation,
like many of our counterparts, have some way to
go in this regard but we are making progress. For
example, a request for ‘Standard Reports’ rather
than tailored reports is now the norm rather than
the exception. If we want additional information
over and above a standard report, which should
contain all the key information on performance, we
should explain why, be clear about it at the outset
and, where necessary, pay for it.
In addition other reporting initiatives our foundation
is exploring include abandoning formal reports
altogether in a small number of specific cases in
favour of annual learning visits to either the head
office or the field where the charity operates. We
hope that this process might reinforce a sense of
trust, shared endeavour and mutual learning and
move our relationships beyond the kind of
procedural accountability described above. At the
least, it will save time.
Finally, there is one other area where foundations
can make a new contribution to the issue of
reporting. Rather than seeing reporting as a one
way street in which traffic flows – in the form of
information – from the funder to funded, it may be
time for foundations to report more clearly, and
accept more scrutiny, about their own impact
relative to their mission. This duty is not only to the
charities they fund – although of course these
charities have a particular stake in understanding
the basis for funding decisions – but is primarily
about accountability for the use of power in society.
Ultimately, this power should be shared between
parties in ways that maximise and create public
benefit. Reporting is an important part of this
equation but only if it serves the purposes outlined
above.
47
PriNCiPlEs iNtO PrACtiCE: Concluding thoughts
This publication aims to inspire charity
professionals to think meaningfully about impact
reporting in their own organisation, and to
demonstrate some of the ways the Principles of
Good Impact Reporting can provide a framework to
improve the quality of information we report as and
demand from charities.
The organisations in the case studies demonstrate
genuine efforts to improve the level and quality of
the information available to both internal and
external stakeholders. The wide variety of
approaches shown here reflects the complex and
varied nature of the charity and social enterprise
sector. It also reflects the early stage that we are
still at when it comes to defining realistic measures
of social value, finding ways to incorporate these
proportionately into operational management and
reporting cycle of a charity, and appropriately
resourcing these processes.
Making the jump to reporting on
impact: A strategic decision
Most organisations already have good internal
monitoring systems. Sarah Hedley highlighted in
her article that in the recent past “it seemed that
charities already had the information they need to
report on. It was just that they didn’t know that
anyone wanted them to report it”. For many
charities there appears to be a big jump from
internal reporting or evaluative mechanisms to
those that are aimed at external stakeholders. This
is no surprise as some charities may be reluctant to
invest in impact reporting when the benefits may
not appear to outweigh potential risk. However, the
case studies in this publication have identified
shared motivations for increasing transparency; for
many this has dramatically changed the discourse
with their funders, through being able to
demonstrate their achievements and value, and
has helped to re-focus organisational strategy.
The Principles of Good Impact Reporting are not only
about taking what we already know about our
organisations and talking about it more openly. The
case study from Body & Soul has demonstrated the
benefits that can come from embracing ‘impact’ more
fully within your strategy. Making the decision to
focus on impact has led the organisation to better
define their objectives and link this more coherently
with individual programmes and activities in their
communications. Staff and volunteers were equipped
with the tools to work to specific outcomes with
individual beneficiaries that clearly tied in to overall
measurable performance indicators and impact.
48
Other organisations have been on equally
transformative journeys. The Avenues Trust Group
has demonstrated a clear learning process,
adapting strategy and services as a result of
findings from a new performance monitoring
system. As discussed by Nick Carey of ACEVO in
his article, the drive from the top here was critical;
impact review and reporting were implemented
within the organisation’s overall strategy.
At the same time the case studies in this
publication have shown the importance of the
bottom-up processes and buy-in from frontline
staff. RNIB Group integrated the skills for
developing better outcome measurement and
understanding of impact throughout the
organisation as a precursor to producing an impact
report or incorporating impact information more
fully into their annual report. This combination of
buy-in and drive from both the top and from the
bottom is likely to lead to impact reporting that fits
more naturally with the day-to-day operations and
decision-making processes of an organisation.
Chris Dabbs points out that in the case of Unlimited
Potential, integrating impact in this way has
actually streamlined work which would otherwise
have been disproportionate as a bolt-on. Linking
performance management with financial reporting
processes and resource allocation, is one way of
building impact into the organisational structure
and communications networks.
Considering a variety of approaches
The sector continues to take positive steps towards
becoming increasingly transparent and exploring
new ways of measuring social value and impact.
The article from Claire Coulier demonstrates some
of the distance travelled in our understanding of our
achievements and how we measure these.
However, as the article title puts clearly, “one size
doesn’t fit all”.
This sentiment extends beyond social impact
measurement techiques. Good quality reporting
goes beyond finding the right performance
indicators for your activities. Charities may also
wish to think creatively about the ways that they
are communicating information to the outside
world. Jim Minton from DHA Communications has
given a brief overview of some of the options
available, and in particular has highlighted some of
the potential behind new forms of social media and
other digital communication avenues. Thinking
about who you are accountable to, who your
audiences are and how to engage your
PART B: Viewpoints from across the sector
stakeholders in the measurement process are all
important. There are a range of routes available
through which to communicate with stakeholders
beyond the ‘impact report’ itself. However, it is
important to make sure first and foremost that
those that wish to find the information are able to
access it easily and understand what it is telling
them without it being misleading. As an initial step
charities can think about the quality of the
information within the Trustees’ Report; the advice
in Amanda Tilley’s article here is particularly
relevant to those organisations that wish to make
some incremental changes to the quality of their
reporting outputs.
should think creatively when it comes to
demonstrating achievements and social value –
this is part of driving forward a transparent,
innovative and inspiring sector.
Beyond your charity: the role of the
wider sector and business
The parallels drawn between charity and business
in articles from Jon Lloyd and Amanda Tilley
provoke challenging questions about how charities
should function as corporate beings in themselves.
The motivation and outcomes of a charity may be
different, but some of the views on investment in
outcomes and professionalism should be the same.
Similarly, we should enable donors, funders and
commissioners to better understand the
significance of looking at the wider social value of
an organisation. This should help to move the
debate on from the current focus on arbitrary
measures of administration or staff costs. Charles
Keidan has in his article posed that there is a
challenge to funders “to make the shift to a new
paradigm of expectations in their relationship to
charities”. Here he suggests new ways of working
in partnership with charities towards shared aims.
He also encourages foundations to themselves
sign up to the principles and to think about the
information demanded of the organisations they
fund and whether this is proportionate and supports
the organisation to achieve their aims in the most
effective way.
We hope that this publication will provide an insight
into how impact reporting may be approached in
different contexts and will prompt charities to
improve their own reporting practices. It is also
hoped that some of the thoughts from the articles
and case studies in this publication will influence
the potential audiences to impact information.
Charities across the sector are at very different
stages in the journey. Many charities are already
demonstrating aspects of the principles; however,
vast improvements in the quality of reporting can
be achieved through tying it in to wider
organisational monitoring and strategy, and through
encouraging evolution in the way information is
demanded and used by stakeholders. Charities
49
rEFErENCEs AND UsEFUl liNKs
1. See www.jargonbusters.org.uk for definitions
of impact and other related terms.
2. The organisations that originally published the
draft Principles of Good Impact Reporting were:
NPC, CFG, ACEVO incorporating the ImpACT
Coalition, NCVO, IoF, and SROI network.
13. Audit Committees Combined Code Guidance a report and proposed guidance by an FRCappointed group chaired by Sir Robert Smith’,
January 2003
14. ‘Review of the role and effectiveness of nonexecutive directors’ Derek Higgs, January 2003
3. Evidence of NHS spending on HIV treatment can
be found: Mandalia S, Mandalia R, Lo G, Chadborn
T, Sharott P, et al. (2010) Rising Population Cost
for Treating People Living with HIV in the UK,
1997-2013. PLoS ONE Volume 5(12)
15. NCVO, ‘Measuring Impact – A Guide to
Resources’, 2012
4. Information on Safety in Numbers (Howarth,
Stimpson et al, 2009) and Saving Lives Saving
Money can be found on the CAADA website here:
http://www.caada.org.uk/policy/research-andevaluation.html
17. More information on the London Benchmarking
Group and the case studies can be found here:
http://www.lbg-online.net/members/casestudies.aspx
5. More information on Proving and Improving – a
quality and impact toolkit for social enterprise can
be found here: www.proveandimprove.org
6. More information on Social Accounting and Audit
can be found on the Social Audit Network website
here: www.socialauditnetwork.org.uk
7. More information on Balance (a ‘balanced score
card’ for social enterprises) can be found here:
www.socialenterprisebalance.org
8. More information on the Investors in People
standard can be found here:
www.investorsinpeople.co.uk
9. More information on Active Support can be
found here:
http://www.personcentredactivesupport.com/
10. More information on the Triangle Consulting
and the Outcomes Star can be found here:
http://www.triangleconsulting.co.uk/ ;
http://www.outcomesstar.org.uk/
11. Action on Hearing Loss has a section on its
website about their impact. This can be found
here:
http://www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk/aboutus/our-impact.aspx
12. Charities SORP 2005:
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/library/g
uidance/sorp05textcolour.pdf
50
16. TSRC, ‘Social impact measurement as an
entrepreneurial process’, 2011
18. The Groundwork webpage referred to in Jon
Lloyd’s article can be found here:
http://www.groundwork.org.uk/who-we-are.aspx
sPONsOrs
Grant thornton
Grant Thornton's national charity and not for profit team provide bespoke audit, tax and other advisory
services to over 800 organisations around the UK. Ranked third by income audited in the CaritasData Top
3,000 Yearbook for 2011, the national audit team were also awarded 'Audit Team of the Year' by
Accountancy Age in 2010 for their services to the not for profit sector. Grant Thornton's accredited charity
specialists work from seven regional locations to ensure our clients are serviced by knowledgeable staff
who are kept abreast on all charity sector and technical issues as they arise.
Grant Thornton is deeply involved in the sector including an annual seminar programme, quarterly
newsletters and other ad hoc technical communications relating to changes in regulation, membership of
technical committees, frequent commentary in the sector press, thought leadership on subjects such as
mergers and governance as well as regular speaking and attendance at all key sector conferences.
For more information, please contact Carol rudge, Head of Not for Profit on 020 7383 5100
Ps Financials
Used by over 400 charities in 39 countries, PS Financials are the authors of award winning Accounting,
Purchasing, Budgeting and Reporting software. Charities deal directly with PS Financials, not with
dealers or middle men. This provides cost savings and a direct relationship in which charities suggest
improvements which are listened to and incorporated in future product releases. Over 80% of the content
of new releases results from charity user suggestions.
PS Financials is used by charities in:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
International Aid and Development
Care and Healthcare
Service Provision
Faith/Religion
Associations and Institutions
Museums and Venues
Education
Grant Provision
Voluntary services
PS Financials provides partial VAT control, SORP and SoFA reporting, funder and trustee reporting,
restricted and unrestricted funds control, consolidation, advanced multi-currency, project costing and easy
integration to other operational systems including ThankQ, Care and Raisers Edge.
For further information on how Ps Financials can help gain time to concentrate on providing
services, benefits and value to their beneficiaries, please visit www.psfinancials.com or call our
charity team on 01733 367 330.
51
Charity Finance Group
CFG is the charity that champions best practice in finance management in the charity and voluntary
sector.
Our vision is a transparent and efficiently managed charity sector that engenders public confidence and
trust. With this aim in sight, CFG delivers services to its charity members and the sector at large which
enable those with financial responsibility in the charity sector to develop and adopt best practice.
With a growing membership of more than 1,700 members, managing over £19 billion, we are uniquely
placed to challenge regulation which threatens the effective use of charity funds, drive efficiency and help
charities to make the most out of their money.
For more information, please see www.cfg.org.uk
New Philanthropy Capital
New Philanthropy Capital (NPC) is a charity think tank and consultancy dedicated to helping funders and
charities to achieve a greater impact. We provide independent research, tools and advice for funders and
charities, and shape the debate about what makes charities effective. We have an ambitious vision: to
create a world in which charities and their funders are as effective as possible in improving people’s lives
and creating lasting change for the better. For charities, this means focusing on activities that achieve a
real difference, using evidence of results to improve performance, making good use of resources, and
being ambitious to solve problems. This requires high-quality leadership and staff, and good financial
management. For funders, this means understanding what makes charities effective and supporting their
endeavours to become effective. It includes using evidence of charities’ results to make funding decisions
and to measure their own impact.
For more information, visit www.philanthropycapital.org
ACEVO
ACEVO is the professional body for third sector chief executives. We connect, develop, support and
represent our members, to increase the sector’s impact and efficiency.
We promote a modern, enterprising third sector, and call upon organisations to be:
• Professional and passionate in achieving change and delivering results
• Well-led, with a commitment to professional development, training and diversity
• Well-governed and accountable, with robust and fit-for-purpose systems to protect independence and
enable effective decision-making
• Enterprising and innovative, taking a business like approach to funding issues and striving for
continuous improvement and sustainable development.
For more information, visit www.acevo.org.uk